Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal (6) T6-ffW OF SOUTH WINDSOR Application# `�'� '- 00 APPLICATION FOR Date -1,C)-00 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Receipt# `19q IMPORTANT.- This application must be submitted to the Planning Department by the second Thursday of the preceding month to insure being heard at the next meeting. ALL ITEMS MUST BE ANSWERED AND ALL SUPPLEMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED. 1. The application and supplements must be filed in duplicate, typed or printed in ink. 2. A Class D or better survey of the property in question must be submitted with the application showing streets, lot lines,building lines,zone boundary lines, dimensions, and buildings present or proposed and buildings on adjacent properties and distance from subject property. 3. If a variance is being requested, a legal description and deed of the property must be submitted with the application. This description can be obtained from the land records. 4. The sign from the Planning Department must be displayed on the property at least 10 days prior to the public hearing in a location visible from all abutting streets. • The applicant, or a representative must be present for the public hearing. The time, date and place of the hearing will be advised by mail. • Inquiries on this application may be directed to the Planning Department at the South Windsor Town Hall. 5. No application shall be a complete application unless it shall be in such form and contain such information as necessary for a fair determination of the issues. Incomplete applications may be denied. 1. Applicant: Gardner L. Chapman 2. Mailing Address: 115 West Road Ellington, CT 06029 3. Telephone#: (860) 872-1000 4. Owner of record of property in question: Gardner L. Chapman 5. Location of property in question: Chase Orchards, LLC Subdivision Assessor's Map# Parcel# Zone R.R. 6. Is applicant a corporation or co-partnership? (If corporation, submit a list of officers. If co-partnership, submit a list of owners). no 6 7. Please indicate if the applicant is owner, lessee, or prospective tenant: owner 8. Check one of the following: ( ) Request Variance to Section of the Zoning Regulations to allow ( ) State hearing under Section of the General Statutes for An appeal from the Zoning Officer's decision involving the use of public streets in south Win sor to access owner's land in Vernon. The appl,cant as a reserve ea ement to use he s reets and tubs raquw .to access ananGa landWermapragwAx . e aDDlLC,anL is tan _lk des he uses the public streets and stubs to access his land. 10. If application is for a variance to Section 3.12, are there any liquor outlets within the restricted area, (500 feet)? YES or NO If yes, submit a list of liquor outlets, their locations and distances from the property in question. 11. Is this property within 500 feet of another town line? yes 12. Is this property within the Connecticut Water Aquifer area? Yes or�@ If yes, application must be filed with the Connecticut Water Company by the applicant. 13. If requesting a variance state clearly the unusual hardship or exceptional difficulty on the property that prompts this application and indicate why other options are unacceptable. Use a separate sheet of paper if necessary. N/A I hereby declare that the data&information contained herein is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 7th day of July Year 2000 Applicant: C�,/o Cta� and er L. Chapman (Si tore) OWNER• Gar ner L. Chapman (Si ature) Approved: Denied: Revised 12/04/98 J NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER OF ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South Windsor and Jeffrey H. Folger, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Town of South Windsor 1. Gardner L. Chapman on or about the 13th day of June, 2000, received a Cease and Desist Order from the Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of South Windsor, a copy of which is attached hereto and made apart hereof (Exhibit A) . 2 . The streets referred to in the Cease and Desist Order. are public streets in Chase Orchards Subdivision approved by the Town of South Windsor. 3 . The land making up Chase Orchards Subdivision was originally owned by the applicant, and the property was adjacent to his remaining land in Vernon. 4 . Before the sale of the South Windsor land to Chase Orchards, the South Windsor land was the only access to the Vernon land and was used by the applicant as his only access to the Vernon portion of his property. 5 . The applicant reserved to himself, his hers and assigns, an easement to use the streets in the Chase Orchards Subdivision for all purposes for which a highway may be used and to connect to said streets through the stubs shown on the subdivision map (Exhibit B) . 6 . The streets shown on the subdivision map became public streets when the subdivision was approved and building permits issued. 7. The subdivision regulations (C.3 Streets, c. Cul-de-Sac (Dead End) Streets) , require that the cul-de-sac street must extend to the property boundary and the subdivision plan must include the appropriate right of way for the extension to be deeded to the Town. 8 . The sections of the Zoning Regulations cited by 1 the enforcement officer are legally and factually incorrect. LABELLE,LABELLE WHEREFORE, the applicant requests that the Board order NAAB&HORtiATH,P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2S5 EAST CENTER ST. MANCHESTER,CT 06040 (860)647-7000 - 2 - the Cease and Desist Order be rescinded, or such other order as in equity may be just . Respectfully submitted, GARDNER L. CHAPMAN �By� b - John D. LaBelle, His Attorney 002Z LABELLE,LABELLE NAAB&HORVATH,P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 285 EAST CENTER ST. MANCHESTER,CT 06040 (860)647-7000 own af4< o R 7-own ale sotz& V&U&ot C r A ` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 9 SOR CO AREA CODE 860 / 644-2511 June 12, 2000 CEASE AND DESIST Certified Mail Gardner Chapman 115 'Nest Road Ellington, CT 06029 LOCATION: Avery Street. Chase Orchards Subdivision Dear Mr. Chapman: ZONE: Rural Residential (RR) By this letter you are hereby notified that a violation of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations exists on the above referenced property. SOUTH WINDSOR REGULATION SECTION: Section 3.1, Compliance with provisions of the regulations. Section 3.4, Use of land for access and parking. TYPE OF VIOLATION: A multi-family zone in the town of Vernon is presently being accessed by a private access-way in a single family z6he in South Windsor. The private access-way to the multi-family zone must be zoned for multi-family use, which is currently not the case. CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED: Immediately cease utilizing the present access for the purposes of developing a multi-family use. The use of land for access to or for parking in connection with and adjacent to a use, shall be considered to be accessory to and part of such use. The private access-way is in a RR zone and multi-family use is not an approved use in a RR zone. Failure to comply with the terms of this notice by July 7, 2000 will result in the violation being entered onto the land records and referral to the Town Attorney for legal action. If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at 644-2511, ext. 229. Sincerely, f�� aoes� U i 671 POSt-its Fax tdOt@ from .P Jeffrey H. Folger To Snh x �. S A Co. Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Officer co Ipe,t CC: Planning/Zoning Commission Fax# " 000 a)( # Phone# � 1-- � F O U C3 Director of Planning Fax# Town Attorney 6.�7 — Z R S !J wAiiRAsry im'Er) FOR,%j 173- EX.21" 1.4 VOL. ]LOOSPAGE 10' m 1 Greeting: i1a oil people to B140M tilest Presents 041111, (11110e. the Town of Ellington, County of Enaw It.(Chat I. GARDNER L. CHAPMAN& Of Tolland, and State of Connecticut. .1140 for the consideration of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1.198.500-00) fultsatisfaction of CHASE ORCHARDS, L.L.C.. a Connecticut Limited received to my the laws of said State, having an Liability Company organized and existing under office in the To— Of South Windsor, County of Hartford, and State Of Connecticut* T" id CHASE ORCHARDS, L.L.C., its bargain.sell and confirm unto the so do give.grant. "A r parcel of land situated successors and assigns forever. that certain piece 0San State of Connecticut- more of South Windsor, County of Hartford. and in the Town bed on SCHEDULE A attached hereto and made a part particularly bounded and descri hereof. J;1 Said premises are subject to taxes on the List of October 1. 1997, which taxes his deed. th a grantee herein assumes and agrees to pay as part consideration for t fifty foot wide drainage and sanitary a conveyed together with a Said premises at cantor herein situated in the Town of sewer easement over other land of the gr described premises to a sanitary sewer connecting from the within Vernon and conn is shown on the hereinafter Hockanum River. said easement _J1 main and to the f CHASE ORCHARDS for a more particular description. described map 0 his heir and assigns. the right The grantor herein hereby reserves for himself, subdivision map in :he Town of South Windsor it to use the streets shown on the said for all purpose for which a highway may be used and to connect to said streets a be shown on the aforesaid map. through the stubs CONVEYANCE TAX RECEIVED -rip; S!15'111'&OCAL S STATE P V, V soul"VWINOSOR 104WMN CL" I is 10 bt� A 1RUic- DOCUMENT RECORDED IN I' y:;,k':)S-0R LMD RECORDS.DATED V L-W OF j CL F_PK Til A vi. �t. � Ff•.._ VOL 10 0 U'S PAGE 18 8 That certain piece or parcel of land situated in the Town of t # South Windsor, County of Hartford, and State of Connecticut, more particularly bounded and described as follows: i ' COMMENCING AT A POINT in the easterly line of Avery Street at the southwest corner of land now or formerly of Stephen T. and Nikki L. Foran, said point being also the northwesterly corner of the premises herein described; the line runs thence South i 850 40' 53" East along the land of said Foran, a distance of f 548.12 feet to a point; the line runs thence South 850 38, i 20" East along land of said Foran, a distance of 722.97 feet to ',. a point; the line runs thence South 860 33' 44" East along land now or formerly of Dart Hill Realty, a distance of 369.90 i feet to a point; the line runs thence South 830 26' 05" East along land now or formerly of Edwin W. Gerber, a distance of 473.99 feet to a point; the line runs thence South 840 39' 47' East along land of said Gerber, a distance of 316.67 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 830 23' 42" East along land of said Gerber, a distance of 191.52 feet to a point in the approximate town line of the Town of Vernon; the line runs ?- thence South 080 37' 18" West along land now or formerly of Gardner Chapman and along the approximate Vernon town line, a distance of 1262.10 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 760 06. 26" West along land now or formerly of Regina' M. i Blozie et al, a distance of 305.99 feet to a point; the line y runs thence North 770 57' 56" West along land of said Blozie, _ x a distance of 574.53 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 760 18. 36" West along land of said Blozie, a distance > of 129.85 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 730 54' 45" West along land of said Blozie, a distance of 96.08 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 770 36' 13' West along land of said Blozie, a distance of 551.24 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 740 51' 14" West along land of said Blozie, a distance of 212.06 feet to a point; the line runs { thence North 760 22. 54" West along land of said Blozie, a f distance of 629.38 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 180 57' 40" East along land now or formerly of Kent A. and i Alice J. Carlson, a distance of 150 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 760 22' 54" West along land of said Carlson, a distance of 250 feet to a point in the easterly line of Avery Street; the line runs thence North 180 57' 40" East along the easterly line of Avery Street, a distance of 266.80 - feet to a point; the line runs thence South 710 02' 20" East along land now or formerly of Sophie Muzikevic, a distance of 27.0 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 180 571 .40" East along land of said Muzikevic, a distance of 239.27 feet to a point; the line runs thence North 720 47' 27" West along = ' land of said Muzikevic, a distance of 272.99 feet to a point in the easterly line of Avery Street; the line runs thence North 180 57' 40" East along the easterly line of Avery Street, a distance of 176.91 feet to the point and place of beginning. Said premises are designated as "CHASE ORCHARDS SUBDIVISION MAP PREPARED FOR CHASE ASSOCIATES SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT Scale: 1" • 40' Date: 11/10/97," which map is to be filed with the t Town Clerk of South Windsor. E ESaid premises are also described as follows: I k r VOL. 10 0 8 PAGE That certain piece or parcel of land situated in the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford, and State of Connecticut, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: NORTHERLY: By land now or formerly of Homer D. Lane, land now or formerly of American Sumatra Tobacco Corp., and land now or formerly of Walter E. and Leah B. Gerber, in part by each; 1 EASTERLY: By the South Windsor-Vernon Town Line, one thousand two hundred sixty-two and 35/100 (1,262.35) feet; , i SOUTHERLY: By land now or formerly of the Estate of Anthony F. Blozie, in part, and by land now or formerly of Stanley P. Muzikevik and Genevieve if. Muzikevik, in part; and WESTERLY: By land now or formerly of Stanley P. Musikevik and Genevieve 11. Muzikevik, and by Avery Street, in part by each. EXCEPTING THEREFROM a certain parcel of land with buildings thereon containing 1.46 acres of land and designated as 1.46 acres on a certain map entitled "Plot Plan Property of Muzikevik Brothers, Inc. Avery Street South Windsor, Connecticut Scale: 1 inch - 100 feet April, 1970 Petersen & Hoffman Successors to Spencer & Washburn, Inc. I hereby certify that this is substantially correct, and conforms to A-1 standard of accuracy. Melvin C. Stead, Sr.," which map is on file in the Town Clerk's Office in said Town of South Windsor. CONTAINING 60.78 acres, more or less. " Said premises are shown as the Second Piece on a map or plan entitled "Property of Muzikevik Brothers, Inc. Avery Street South Windsor & Vernon, Conn. Scale: 1 inch . 100 feet March, 1970 Petersen & Hoffman Successors to Spencer & Washburn, Inc. I hereby certify that this map is substantially correct Melvin C. Stead Sr." and also on a map entitled "Plot Plan Property of Muzikevik Brothers, Inc. Avery Street South Windsor, !. Connecticut Scale: 1 inch - 100 feet April, 1970 Petersen & Hoffman Successors to Spencer & Washburn, Inc. I hereby certify that this map is substantially correct, and conforms to A-1 f standard of accuracy. Melvin C. Stead, Sr.," which map is on file in the Town Clerk's Office in said Town of South Windsor. F Being the SECOND PIECE described in a deed recorded in the South Windsor Land Records, Volume 329, Page 324. t i :� 1 en- VOL. 1 C 0 S PAGE 1- 0 t go Moor Mb to 3100 the above granted and bargained premises,with the appurtenances t unto it, the said grantee , its 'lti'!!S, successors and forever,to its and their own proper use and behoof. Ana also. I. the said grantor do for myself, my hei executors and administrators,covenant with the said grantee . its successors, heM and assigns,that at and until the encealing of these ppresents. I am i well seized of the premises,as a good indefeasible estate in FEE SIAIPLE.and have good right ro bargain and sell the same in manner and form as is above written;and that the same is free from all incuns. brances whatsoever,except as hereinbefore mentioned. Ana$urillermort. I, the said grantor, do by these presents bind myself and my heirs,executors and administrators forever to%VAR. RANT AND DEFEND the above granted and bargained premises to it' the said grant its successors,d erisw and assigns,against all claims and demands whatsom except as hercinbefore mentioned. Jn Witnton-PAt rvttf. I have hereunto set MY hand and seal this _f!' day of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-e gg t. Signed.Scaled and Delivered in presence of !r ' t• //i Gardner Lop.'-Chapin L.S. i L.S.. Etatt of(Conntcticut, SS. Manchester Cmwty of Hartford. On this the "�C-rAA day of May 19 98 before me. JO D. LaBELLE ,the undersigned officer,personally appeared GARDNER L. CHAPMAN known to me(or satisfactorily proven)to be the person whose name is ' subscribed to the within instrument an acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes - therein contained,as h is free act and deed. 3n 39itntsa 304trtof.l hereunto set my hand and gjff seal. ' — r �.. . r,V John D. LaBelle Commissioner.-of-she Superior— .Court.--Title of Officer Btatt of Cannetticut. SS. !County of On this the day of ,19 before me. the undersigned officer,personally appeared "¢ who acknowledged himself to be the _ Of ,a corporation,and that he as such being authari.rd so to do,executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained,by signing the name of the corporation by himsclas „• N Bunton 304ertaf.l hereunto set my hand and official seal. i Title of Officer Latest address of Grantee: i No.and Street_Q31-91_ ington Road RECEIVED FOR RECORD City $ot th-Wind$Or AT 8:02 U Cl n-N State—LT__ _Zip-90QTL RFCORDPD IN SOUTH WINDSAR LAND RECORDS V01 1' PAGE (ENS t BY TOWN CA EPK CHASE ORCHARDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 1212 SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 06074 September 10, 2000 Ms. Marjorie S. Anthony, Chairperson South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals 97 Pleasant Valley Rd. South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Anthony: I am asking you for your support on behalf of the Chase Orchards Homeowners Association on a matter that will be before you on September 14, 2000. As citizens of South Windsor, we are asking you to support the law and protect our families. Mr. Gardner Chapman and his company want you to overturn the June Cease and Desist Order issued by South Windsor's Zoning Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Folger. The order prohibits Mr. Chapman and his construction crews from using the Chase Orchards subdivision, and in particular, the cul-de-sac on Kingsley Drive to access the apartments and industrial buildings Mr. Chapman is developing in Vernon. We ask you to uphold the Cease and Desist Order, and rule against Mr. Chapman's appeal because it is a correct application of South Windsor's zoning laws and because the underlying reasons behind zoning and land use restrictions is just and reasonable and that the facts and circumstances that compelled the zoning officer to issue the order was justified and proper. Mr. Chapman uses the parcel at the end of Kingsley Drive to access his Vernon apartment and industrial projects. This parcel is part of the Chase Orchards development and will be deeded to the Town of South Windsor as open space. Additionally, the roads of Chase Orchards with Mr. Chapman's right of way deed restriction will also be deeded to the town. It is our understanding that all of the Chase Orchards subdivision, including roads and the open space are zoned rural residential. Mr. Chapman is clearly developing his property in Vernon for apartments and industrial buildings, which conflicts with a rural residential zoning designation. Mr. John Doran, the developer of Chase Orchards, craftily deeded a right of way to Mr. Chapman on the town open space at the end of Kingsley Drive and the rest of the roads in Chase Orchards. The town's zoning officer has ruled that these rights of way for construction(and permanent access of any kind)to the apartment and industrial complex are a violation of South Windsor's zoning laws. The Executive Board and members of the Chase Homeowners Association strongly support this position. This conclusion is a correct and justified application of law. The application of South Windsor's zoning law in this circumstance is correct,justified and proper. South Windsor ZBA Letter Chase Orchards Homeowners Association Page 2 Zoning laws exist to protect citizens of a community. This is especially true in development of property that borders another town, as is the case in these circumstances. South Windsor and its citizens, especially the 51 homes that make up the Chase Orchards Homeowners Association, should not shoulder the burden of development of a property in Vernon. The zoning laws of South Windsor should work to protect the citizens of South Windsor. I believe my neighbors and I understand that Mr. Chapman has the right to develop his property in Vernon. The law, however, should protect us from having to shoulder the burden of the development of a large apartment and industrial complex without any benefit to us in South Windsor. I once again on behalf of the Chase Orchards Homeowners Association ask for your support on September 14, 2000 and uphold the Cease and Desist Order against Mr. Chapman and deny his appeal. Thank you, Kathi Atkinson Secretary 2 DAVID & KATHLEEN GUAY 28 KINGSLEY DRIVE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 06074 860-436.4321 FAX 860-436-4322 August 23, 2000 Ms. Marjorie S. Anthony, Chairperson South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals 97 Pleasant Valley Rd. South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Marge: I am asking you for your support on a matter that will be before you on September 7, 2000. As a citizen of South Windsor,I am asking you to support the law and protect my family and me. Mr. Gardner Chapman and his company want you to overturn the June Cease and Desist Order issued by South Windsor's Zoning Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Folger. The order prohibits Mr. Chapman and his construction crews from using the Chase Orchards subdivision, and in particular,the cul-de-sac on Kingsley Drive where I live, to access the apartments and industrial buildings Mr. Chapman is developing in Vernon. I ask you to uphold the Cease and Desist Order, and rule against Mr. Chapman's appeal because it is a correct application of South Windsor's zoning laws and because the underlying reasons behind zoning and land use restrictions is just and reasonable and that the facts and circumstances that compelled the zoning officer to issue the order was justified and proper. Mr. Chapman uses the parcel at the end of Kingsley Drive across from my house to access his Vernon apartment and industrial projects. This parcel is part of the Chase Orchards development and will be deeded to the Town of South Windsor as open space. Additionally, the roads of Chase Orchards with Mr. Chapman's right of way deed restriction will also be deeded to the town. It is my understanding that all of the Chase Orchards subdivision, including roads and the open space are zoned rural residential. Mr. Chapman is clearly developing his property in Vernon for apartments and industrial buildings, which conflicts with a rural residential zoning designation. Mr. John Doran, the developer of Chase Orchards, craftily deeded a right of way to Mr. Chapman on the town open space at the end of Kingsley Drive and the rest of the roads in Chase Orchards. The town's zoning officer has ruled that these rights of way for construction(and permanent access of any kind)to the apartment and industrial complex are a violation of South Windsor's zoning laws. I strongly support this position. This conclusion is a correct and justified application of law. South Windsor ZBA Letter from David Guay Page 2 The application of South Windsor's zoning law in this circumstance is correct,justified and proper. With their surreptitious machinations to circumvent the zoning laws of this community, Mr. Chapman and Mr. Doran showed an understanding of the appropriate laws and a clear desire to go around them. I believe the facts and circumstances of how and why this right of way was deeded into town property shows a deliberate attempt to circumvent the zoning laws of South Windsor. I believe Mr. Chapman secured the right of way in the transaction that provided the property that would become Chase Orchards to Mr. Doran,the developer of Chase Orchards because Mr. Chapman knew that only one bridge would be permitted to be built across the Hockanum River. Because of the planned size of the development he was planning on his Vernon parcel, Mr. Chapman would need Vernon zoning variances for cul-de-sac length and he would need to show the Vernon zoning authorities he had another access to his development. I believe Mr. Chapman knew he would have difficulty with zoning in South Windsor and deliberately chose to gain deeded access to my cul-de-sac and thus prove to Vernon authorities that he had another access. Since filing his appeal,Mr. Chapman has ignored the cease and desist order every single day, continuing to show that he understands how the law works. I would argue that he knew that a de-facto stay of the cease and desist order would be in effect until the September 7, 2000 appeal. I would argue he knew that the Town of South Windsor would not seek relief in court because it would not be resolved until after the September 7, 2000 date. Mr. Chapman then had an entire summer to continue on with his construction project, at no personal cost to him. I applaud the Town Attorney's skill in choosing the sooner date of September 7, 2000 to have the order upheld and enforced. Once again, I am disappointed to report that Mr. Chapman chose to once again manipulate the situation to his advantage. I believe he chose to do what he has always wanted to do in this case,that is do what he wants to do, regardless of the laws and rights of the citizens of the town of South Windsor. I believe he could have obeyed the lawful order and waited to September 7, 2000 to appeal and make his case. Rather, he chose to continue using our cul-de-sac without regard to the order. I provide as proof the following series of pictures, which illustrate heavy construction use of South Windsor's roads in the Chase Orchards subdivision and the open space parcel at the end of Kingsley Drive. Zoning laws exist to protect citizens of a community. This is especially true in development of property that borders another town, as is the case in these circumstances. South Windsor and its citizens, especially the 200 some homes that border and comprise that corner of South Windsor, should not shoulder the burden of development of a property in Vernon. The zoning laws of South Windsor should work to protect the citizen's of South Windsor. I believe my neighbors and I understand that Mr. Chapman has the right to develop his property in Vernon. The law,however, should protect us from having to shoulder the 2 South Windsor ZBA Letter from David Guay Page 3 burden of the development of a large apartment and industrial complex without any benefit to us in South Windsor. The burden we shoulder in the Chase Orchards subdivision and the rest of the town includes increased heavy construction traffic racing through the town and subdivision roads, including the blasting materials that severely shake my home on a daily basis. Fast moving construction equipment menaces our young children as they walk and play. After Mr. Chapman finishes the construction phase of this project, he plans an access of some kind from his apartment and industrial complex onto South Windsor's roads through the town property at the end of Kingsley Drive. South Windsor's zoning did not happen by accident but is part of a vision and plan of our town. I would argue that the South Windsor vision and plan supported by zoning does not include an apartment and industrial complex in Vernon dumping all sorts of traffic of every kind onto what was envisioned to be a cul-de-sac nor subsequently onto main South Windsor arteries like Avery Street(that is already over burdened with traffic). If you do not uphold the cease and desist order, the only winner will be Mr. Chapman and the community of Vernon, which is anticipating more tax revenue(without its citizenry unduly disrupted or endangered by construction vehicles barreling down suburban streets). South Windsor, my neighbors and I will all be losing the protection of law,the safety of our children, and shouldering the burden of Mr. Chapman's Vernon development. I once again ask for our support on September 7 2000 and uphold the Cease and Desist g Y pp p � p Order against Mr. Chapman and deny his appeal. I look forward to appearing before you on September 7, 2000 in support of my case. Thank you, 4 s" � .. David L. Guay 3 September 2000 To The South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals We the undersigned, residents of the Chase Orchards neighborhood area petition and urge the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the appeal by Mr. Gardner Chapman and his company to overturn the June Cease and Desist Order issued by South Windsor's Zoning Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Folger. The order prohibits Mr. Chapman and his construction crews from using the Chase Orchards subdivision, and in particular, the cul-de-sac on Kingsley Drive to access the apartments and industrial buildings Mr. Chapman is developing in Vernon. We ask you to uphold the Cease and Desist Order, and rule against Mr. Chapman's appeal because it is a correct application of South Windsor's zoning laws and because the underlying reasons behind zoning and land use restrictions is just and reasonable and that the facts and circumstances that compelled the zoning officer to issue the order was justified and proper. Name Address �L, September 2000 To The South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals We the undersigned, residents of the Chase Orchards neighborhood area petition and urge the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the appeal by Mr. Gardner Chapman and his company to overturn the June Cease and Desist Order issued by South Windsor's Zoning Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Folger. The order prohibits Mr. Chapman and his construction crews from using the Chase Orchards subdivision, and in particular,the cul-de-sac on Kingsley Drive to access the apartments and industrial buildings Mr. Chapman is developing in Vernon. We ask you to uphold the Cease and Desist Order, and rule against Mr. Chapman's appeal because it is a correct application of South Windsor's zoning laws and because the underlying reasons behind zoning and land use restrictions is just and reasonable and that the facts and circumstances that compelled the zoning officer to issue the order was justified and proper. Name Address 1.3o T�c©H P Ed �f. :ems ��4 PI Ahard //0� OV dJ0_A-J7 C64LkrL 0 a)aq 1-71 September 2000 To The South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals We the undersigned, residents of the Chase Orchards neighborhood area petition and urge the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the appeal by Mr. Gardner Chapman and his company to overturn the June Cease and Desist Order issued by South Windsor's Zoning Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Folger. The order prohibits Mr. Chapman and his construction crews from using the Chase Orchards subdivision, and in particular, the cul-de-sac on Kingsley Drive to access the apartments and industrial buildings Mr. Chapman is developing in Vernon. We ask you to uphold the Cease and Desist Order, and rule against Mr. Chapman's appeal because it is a correct application of South Windsor's zoning laws and because the underlying reasons behind zoning and land use restrictions is just and reasonable and that the facts and circumstances that compelled the zoning officer to issue the order was justified and proper. Name Address l-S -ire CAW rive, 1.v7 0 _ � 3 74/ca Z`f C A- ;X 0(41_ S � 7 110 -To September 2000 To The South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals We the undersigned, residents of the Chase Orchards neighborhood area petition and urge the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the appeal by Mr. Gardner Chapman and his company to overturn the June Cease and Desist Order issued by South Windsor's Zoning Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Folger. The order prohibits Mr. Chapman and his construction crews from using the Chase Orchards subdivision, and in particular, the cul-de-sac on Kingsley Drive to access the apartments and industrial buildings Mr. Chapman is developing in Vernon. We ask you to uphold the Cease and Desist Order, and rule against Mr. Chapman's appeal because it is a correct application of South Windsor's zoning laws and because the underlying reasons behind zoning and land use restrictions is just and reasonable and that the facts and circumstances that compelled the zoning,officer to issue the order was justified and proper. Name Address H �D 7 � 133 i TX ko C. dn Ld 'C �oTT 2tflG Lb September 2000 To The South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals We the undersigned, residents of the Chase Orchards neighborhood area petition and urge the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the appeal by Mr. Gardner Chapman and his company to overturn the June Cease and Desist Order issued by South Windsor's Zoning Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Folger. The order prohibits Mr. Chapman and his construction crews from using the Chase Orchards subdivision, and in particular, the cul-de-sac on Kingsley Drive to access the apartments and industrial buildings Mr. Chapman is developing in Vernon. We ask you to uphold the Cease and Desist Order, and rule against Mr. Chapman's appeal because it is a correct application of South Windsor's zoning laws and because the underlying reasons behind zoning and land use restrictions is just and reasonable and that the facts and circumstances that compelled the zoning officer to issue the order was justified and proper. Name Address r 17 r1 �7 ( , � , , izou September 2000 To The South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals We the undersigned, residents of the Chase Orchards neighborhood area petition and urge the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the appeal by Mr. Gardner Chapman and his company to overturn the June Cease and Desist Order issued by South Windsor's Zoning Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Folger. The order prohibits Mr. Chapman and his construction crews from using the Chase Orchards subdivision, and in particular, the cul-de-sac on Kingsley Drive to access the apartments and industrial buildings Mr. Chapman is developing in Vernon. We ask you to uphold the Cease and Desist Order, and rule against Mr. Chapman's appeal because it is a correct application of South Windsor's zoning laws and because the underlying reasons behind zoning and land use restrictions is just and reasonable and that the facts and circumstances that compelled the zoning officer to issue the order was justified and proper. Name Address `ems Div VW• Iq8 Tollcof� �r �� z kv September 2000 To The South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals We the undersigned, residents of the Chase Orchards neighborhood area petition and urge the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the appeal by Mr. Gardner Chapman and his company to overturn the June Cease and Desist Order issued by South Windsor's Zoning Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Folger. The order prohibits Mr. Chapman and his construction crews from using the Chase Orchards subdivision, and in particular, the cul-de-sac on Kingsley Drive to access the apartments and industrial buildings Mr. Chapman is developing in Vernon. We ask you to uphold the Cease and Desist Order, and rule against Mr. Chapman's appeal because it is a correct application of South Windsor's zoning laws and because the underlying reasons behind zoning and land use restrictions is just and reasonable and that the facts and circumstances that compelled the zoning officer to issue the order was justified and proper. Name Address Q , 0 Icy 7C1 ](4 ter= STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Commissioner of Public Safety 2800 BERLIN TURNPIKE, P.O. BOX 317546 commissioner of Motor vehicles NEWINGTON, CT 06131-7546 Phone. 860) 594-3020 July 20, 2000 Mr. Gardner L. Chapman 115 West Road Ellington, CT 06029 Dear Mr. Chapman: Subject: Town of Vernon The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing The Park at Hockanum Crossing Certificate No. 1462 and Traffic Investigation Report No. 146-0005-03 detailing conditions of the Certificate approved at the July 18, 2000 meeting of the State Traffic Commission are enclosed. Additionally, enclosed is the procedure for filing Certificates on land records, to satisfy Condition No. 4. Very truly yours, Joseph Santaniello, P.E. Executive Director Enclosures cc: Chief Rudolf M. Rossmy Mr. Gene F. Bolles Planning and Zoning Commission Mr. James G. Bubaris, P.E. Mr. Richard J. Porth An Equal Opportunity Employer print*e mydd-r-.,,"d pp,, STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Commissioner of Public Safety 2800 BERLIN TURNPIKE P.O. BOX 317546 � Commissioner of Motor Vehicles NEWINGTON, CT 06131-7546 Phone: (860) 594-3020 CERTIFICATE NO. 1462 STC NO. 146-0005-03 APPROVED July 18, 2000 EXPIRES July 17, 2002 ISSUED TO: Mr. Gardner L. Chapman 115 West Road Ellington, CT 06029 FOR: The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing The Park at Hockanum Crossing Hockanum Boulevard Town of Vernon Pursuant to Section 14-311 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, as revised, and the Regulations of the State Traffic Commission. The applicant is hereby ordered to comply with the conditions and requirements as set forth in the attached report and plans. Failure to comply with all conditions and requirements will constitute sufficient basis for revocation of the Certificate. NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ABOVE UNLESS PERMISSION HAS BEEN REQUESTED AND RECEIVED FROM THE STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO OPERATE PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. THIS CERTIFICATE WILL EXPIRE TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE APPROVAL DATE OF THE ATTACHED REPORT UNLESS ALL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE COMPLIED WITH WITHIN THAT PERIOD OR PERMISSION IS REQUESTED AND OBTAINED FROM THE STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE. Upon due notice from this Commission, this Certificate may be reviewed and modified or revoked in the interest of public safety. Date• � ! 1.�y 2e2ppp2h�Santaniello, P.E. Executive Director An Equal Opportunity Employer prim,/o. recycled-wo"d pip,, TRA-10 REV 1197 Report By: JMG Date: 7/00 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STC No: 146-0005-03 Checked By: PJC Date: 7/00 TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION REPORT TO THE Loc. No: See Previous STC Report No. STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION Approved By STC Vernon Date: A � 8 Requested By: Location: Hockanum Crossing Bubaris Traffic Associates, Inc. How Requested: Certificate Application Date: 5/10/00 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Recommendation- In accordance with Section 14-311 of the Connecticut General Statutes, as revised, it is recommended that the State Traffic Commission (STC) issue a certificate to Gardner L. Chapman for Hockanum Crossing with 64,000 sq.ft. of industrial development, 424 apartment units, and 1,240 parking spaces, located west of Route 83 in Vernon, stating that the operation thereof will not imperil the safety of the public based on the following requirements. This recommendation is referenced to the plan prepared by Gardner and Peterson Associates titled "Hockanum Crossing,Vernon, Connecticut, " Sheet No. I of 1,dated February 7,2000. This recommendation is based on the following conditions: I. That the applicant construct a bridge over the Hockanum River and extend Hockanum Boulevard to the site, in substantial conformance with the above-referenced plan. 2. That the developer not be permitted to occupy any additional building space above 24,000 sq.ft. of industrial development(Lot#2), 118 apartment units and 354 parking spaces until such time as the improvements necessary at Route 83 and Hockanum Boulevard are accomplished. These improvements include the realignment of Wilshire Road opposite Hockanum Boulevard, the addition of opposing left-turn lanes on Route 83, and the signalization of the intersection. These improvements are scheduled to be completed by State Project 146-155. The design completion date for the project is November 2000. 3. That the applicant construct two gated, limited access, emergency driveways, one on the west side and one on the north side of the site,as shown on the above-referenced plan. 4. That within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the Certificate, a copy thereof, together with this report, be recorded on the municipal land records in accordance with the attached procedure. 5. That the State Traffic Commission reserves the right to require additional improvements or changes, as deemed necessary, due to the development's traffic in the future. The cost of any additional improvements or changes shall be borne by the owner of the development. 1 hereby Cert1fY & Attest this Is a Trw_ ."cipy. Joseph 5antalu_;;U, P.E. By ' vision is n neenng Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations DATEn STC No. 146-0005-03 Vernon Hockanum Crossing Mr.James Bubaris, the applicant's authorized representative, concurred with the above on July 14, 2000. Mr. Rudolph Rossmy, the Legal Traffic Authority for the Town of Vernon, concurred with the above on July 13, 2000. 2 Report of Findings STC No. 146-0005-03 Town of Vernon Hockanum Crossing Hockanum Crossing is a proposed development of 64,000 sq.ft. of industrial development, 424 apartment units and 1,240 parking spaces located off Route 83 in Vernon. Access to the site will be from Route 83 via Hockanum Boulevard. Hockanum Boulevard is currently a cul-de-sac, which forms a T- inter section on the west side of Route 83. The developer proposes to extend Hockanum Boulevard westerly, which involves building a bridge over the Hockanum River. The Town of Vernon and the State of Connecticut are in the process of designing a project to realign Wilshire Road at Route 83 opposite Hockanum Boulevard and providing signalization at the new, four-legged intersection. The project will include widening to provide left-turn lanes with exclusive left-turn signal phasing on Route 83. Until this project is complete, Hockanum Boulevard at Route 83 will remain as stop-controlled. To avoid long queues and excessive delays, the volume of traffic added to this intersection shall be kept at a minimum. Therefore, as recommended by the applicant, the developer will only be allowed to occupy 24,000 sq.ft. of industrial development and 118 apartment units. Upon completion of the project, the developer will be permitted full occupancy of the site. The developer will not be responsible for any roadway improvements involving state roads; therefore, no bonding is required. 3 D 0 N 0 T R E C O R D T H I S P A G E PROCEDURE FOR FILING CERTIFICATES AND TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION REPORTS ON LAND RECORDS Instructions to Owner: Within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the Certificate, a copy thereof, together with the Traffic Investigation Report, is to be recorded, AT NO COST to the State of Connecticut, by the owner on the land records of the municipality in which the parcel of land encompassed by the Certificate is located. Traffic Investigation Reports approved subsequent to the issuance of the Certificate are to be recorded in the same manner. If the subject premises are situated in more than one municipality, a duplicate copy of the above document (s) must be recorded by the applicant, AT NO COST to the State of Connecticut, on the land records of each municipality. After recording, forward a copy of the above document (s) , evidencing the date of recording and the land record volume and page, to the Office of the State Traffic Commission (STC) , 2800 Berlin Turnpike, P.O. Drawer 317546, Newington, CT 06131-7546. Please forward instructions to Town Clerk. D 0 N 0 T R E C O R D T H I S P A G E Instructions to Town Clerk: The municipality _clerk shall list the "State of Connecticut" as the grantor of the Certificate in the municipal land record indices. RETURN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS TO THE OWNER. Failure to comply with the . above may cause the Certificate to become invalid. 616100 D 0 N 0 T R E C O R D T H I S P A G E Design& Improvement Standards (7) The required right-of-way shall be deeded to Exhibit I: Residential the Town in accordance with the procedures Street Hierarchy for acceptance of land/improvements 1. Local Street: Lowest order of contained elsewhere in these regulations. streets. Provides frontage for access to lots, and carries traffic b. Street Hierarchy having destination or origin on the street itself. All, or the maximum (1) Streets shall be classified in a street number of housing units, shall front hierarchy system with design tailored to on this class of street. An east-to- west orientation is considered function. desirable to allow for maximum solar lot configuration. Expected (2)The street hierarchy system shall be defined traffic volume is less than 1,000 by road function and average daily traffic vehicles per day. (ADT), calculated by trip generation rates 2. Minor Collector: Provides frontage prepared by the Institute of Transportation for access to lots that are unable to Engineers. Trip generation rates from other access local streets,and carries sources may be used if the applicant traffic of adjoining local streets. demonstrates that these sources better reflect Designed to carry somewhat higher local conditions. traffic volumes with traffic limited to motorists having origin or destination within the immediate (3) Each residential street shall be classified and neighborhood. May interconnect designed for its entire length to meet the adjoining neighborhoods or standards for one of the street types defined subdivisions but should not carry in Exhibit 1. regional through traffic. Expected traffic volumes generally range (4)The applicant shall demonstrate to the between 1,000 and 3,000 vehicles Commissions'satisfaction that the per day. distribution of traffic to the proposed street 3. Major Collector: Serves both a system will not exceed the ADT thresholds traffic movement function and a indicated in Exhibit 1 for any proposed street limited land access function. A significant portion of trips are types. through trips, with both origin and destination outside the c. Cul-de-Sac (Dead End) Streets neighborhood. Expected traffic volumes generally range between (1) Residential Cul-de-Sac Streets 3,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day. Cul-de-sac streets shall not exceed 600 feet 4. Arterial: Primary function is to move in length measured from the right-of-way large volumes of traffic quickly. line of the intersecting street to the Traffic volumes on these roads centerpoint of the cul-de-sac radius along the generally exceed 10,000 vehicles street centerline. per day. Where a cul-de-sac street could appropriately and reasonably be extended in the future to another outlet, the 600' limit may be waived by the Commission. The cul-de-sac street must extend to the II 35 Town of South Windsor Subdivision Regulations property boundary and the subdivision plan must include the appropriate right-of- way for the extension, to be deeded to the Town in accordance with procedures specified elsewhere in these regulations. (2) Industrial Cul-de-Sac Streets Cul-de-sac streets in all industrial zones shall generally not exceed 1500 feet in length, measured per Section C.3.c(1) above. The Commission may grant a waiver of the length requirement of this section, in industrial zones only, if the Commission deems it desirable due to adverse topographic or_environmental conditions, difficult site configuration, if such street is likely to be extended in the future to another outlet, if no potential outlet would be available to serve the industrial zone area, or if such extension serves the purposes of access management, subject to the following conditions: (a) In no case shall a dead end street exceed 2,500 feet in length. (b) If a potential outlet is available, the Commission shall conclude that the conceptual routing of such outlet appears reasonable. (c) If no potential outlet is available,the Commission shall determine that the subject property cannot be reasonably served by any other public street(existing or future) due to-site constraints (environmental or topographic), accepted engineering standards, and/or prohibitive or excessive cost. (d) The Commission shall determine that the proposed extension conforms to the goals and objectives of access management. (e) The Commission shall conclude that the proposed street extension will function as an industrial local street,rather than a collector or arterial highway. (f) Underground utilities must be provided. Said waiver may be considered and acted upon at the request of the subdivider in advance of a formal subdivision application. In such cases, a conceptual layout of the proposed street extension shall be submitted with the written waiver request, accompanied by a narrative statement explaining the proposal and why a waiver is consistent with I the requirements of this section. Any such waiver shall be conditional upon.the requirement that individual lot development within the industrial subdivision shall,to the extent possible,provide for emergency vehicle access in the event of a street blockage (e.g. fallen tree,ruptured pipe, etc.). This may include t an access driveway at each end of the street frontage providing an } } 36 t, STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Commissioner of Public Safety 2800 BERLIN TURNPIKE, P.O. BOX 317546 Commissioner of Moor Vehicles NEWINGTON, CT 06131-7546 Phone, 860) 594-3020 July 20, 2000 Mr. Gardner L. Chapman 115 West Road Ellington, CT 06029 Dear Mr. Chapman: Subject: Town of Vernon The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing The Park at Hockanum Crossing Certificate No. 1462 and Traffic Investigation Report No. 146-0005-03 detailing conditions of the Certificate approved at the July 18, 2000 meeting of the State Traffic Commission are enclosed. Additionally, enclosed is the procedure for filing Certificates on land records, to satisfy Condition No. 4 . Very truly yours, Joseph Santaniello, P.E. Executive Director Enclosures cc: Chief Rudolf M. Rossmy Mr. Gene F. Bolles Planning and Zoning Commission Mr. James G. Bubaris, P.E. Mr. Richard J. Porth An Equal Opportunity Employer P—I'd ow —Yde/- r,c"v d P.po STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Commissioner of Public safety 2800 BERLIN TURNPIKE, P.O. BOX 317546 Commissioner of Motor vehicles NEWINGTON, CT 06131-7546 Phone: (860) 594-302 0 CERTIFICATE NO. 1462 STC NO. 146-0005-03 APPROVED July 18, 2000 EXPIRES July 17, 2002 ISSUED TO: Mr. Gardner L. Chapman 115 West Road Ellington, CT 06029 FOR: The Mansions at Hoc'kanum Crossing The Park at Hockanum Crossing Hockanum Boulevard Town of Vernon Pursuant to Section 14-311 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, as revised, and the Regulations of the State Traffic Commission. The applicant is hereby ordered to comply with the conditions and requirements as set forth in the attached report and plans. Failure to comply With all conditions and requirements will constitute sufficient basis for revocation of the Certificate. NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ABOVE UNLESS PERMISSION HAS BEEN REQUESTED AND RECEIVED FROM THE STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO OPERATE PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. THIS CERTIFICATE WILL EXPIRE TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE APPROVAL DATE OF THE ATTACHED REPORT UNLESS ALL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE COMPLIED WITH WITHIN THAT PERIOD OR PERMISSION IS REQUESTED AND OBTAINED FROM THE STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE. Upon due notice from this Commission, this Certificate may be reviewed and modified or revoked in the interest of public safety. 2 L- ExecutiveDate:p Sa Director An Equal Opportunity Employer _- Pr(wrr/ow rrrydd ar rrcorrrr/pep- TRA-10 REV 1197 v Report By: JMG Date: 7/00 STATE OF CONNECTICUr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STC No: 146-0005-03 Checked By: PJC Date: 7/00 TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION REPORT TO THE Loc. No: See Previous STC Report STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION Approved By STC No. Vernon Date: f 8 Requested By: Location: Hockanum Crossing Bubaris Traffic Associates, Inc. How Requested: Certificate Application Date: 5/10/00 . EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Recommendation: In accordance with Section 14-311 of the Connecticut General Statutes, as revised, it is recommended that the State Traffic Commission (STC) issue a certificate to Gardner L. Chapman for Hockanum Crossing with 64,000 sq.ft. of industrial development, 424 apartment units, and 1,240 parking spaces, located west of Route 83 in Vernon, stating that the operation thereof will not imperil the safety of the public based on the following requirements. This recommendation is referenced to the plan prepared by Gardner and Peterson Associates titled "Hockanum Crossing, Vernon, Connecticut, " Sheet No. 1 of 1,dated February 7,2000. This recommendation is based on the following conditions: 1. That the applicant construct a bridge over the Hockanum River and extend Hockanum Boulevard to the site, in substantial conformance with the above-referenced plan. 2. That the developer not be permitted to occupy any additional building space above 24,000 sq.ft. of industrial development(Lot#2), 118 apartment units and 354 parking spaces until such time as the improvements necessary at Route 83 and Hockanum Boulevard are accomplished. These improvements include the realignment of Wilshire Road opposite Hockanum Boulevard, the addition of opposing left-turn lanes on Route 83, and the signalization of the intersection. These improvements are scheduled to be completed by State Project 146-155. The design completion date for the project is November 2000. 3. That the applicant construct two gated, limited access, emergency driveways, one on the west side and one on the north side of the site, as shown on the above-referenced plan. 4. That within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the Certificate, a copy thereof, together with this report, be recorded on the municipal land records in accordance with the attached procedure. 5. That the State Traffic Commission reserves the right to require additional improvements or changes, as deemed necessary, due to the development's traffic in the future. The cost of any additional improvements or changes shall be borne by the owner of the development. hereby Certify & Attest this Is a TruA. =:apy. J p zi,h SantalN_i.L4 P.E. By !� vision is n neenng f Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations DATE 2c3`� 1 r STC No. 146-0005-03 Vernon Hockanum Crossing Mr.James Bubaris, the applicant's authorized representative, concurred with the above on July 14, 2000. Mr. Rudolph Rossmy, the Legal Traffic Authority for the Town of Vernon, concurred with the above on July 13, 2000. 2 Report of Findings STC No. 146-0005-03 Town of Vernon Hockanum Crossing Hockanum Crossing is a proposed development of 64,000 sq.ft. of industrial development, 424 apartment units and 1,240 parking spaces located off Route 83 in Vernon. Access to the site will be from Route 83 via Hockanum Boulevard. Hockanum Boulevard is currently a cul-de-sac, which forms a T- intersection on the west side of Route 83. The developer proposes to extend Hockanum Boulevard westerly, which involves building a bridge over the Hockanum River. The Town of Vernon and the State of Connecticut are in the process of designing a project to realign Wilshire Road at Route 83 opposite Hockanum Boulevard and providing signalization at the new, four-legged intersection. The project will include widening to provide left-turn lanes with exclusive left-turn signal phasing on Route 83. Until this project is complete, Hockanum Boulevard at Route 83 will remain as stop-controlled. To avoid long queues and excessive delays, the volume of traffic added to this intersection shall be kept at a minimum. Therefore, as recommended by the applicant, the developer will only be allowed to occupy 24,000 sq.ft. of industrial development and 118 apartment units. Upon completion of the project, the developer will be P J permitted full P p 11 occupancy of the site. The developer will not be responsible for any roadway improvements involving state roads; therefore, no bonding is required. 3 D O N O T R E C O R D T H I S P A G E PROCEDURE FOR FILING CERTIFICATES AND TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION REPORTS ON LAND RECORDS Instructions to Owner: Within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the Certificate, a copy thereof, together with the Traffic Inves tigation igation Report, AT NO COST to the State ofrConnecticut, by the d� owner on the land records of the municipality in which the parcel of land encompassed by the Certificate is located. Traffic Investigation Reports approved subsequent to the issuance of the Certificate are to be recorded in the same manner. If the subject premises are situated in more than one municipality, a duplicate copy of the above document (s) must be recorded by the applicant, AT NO COST to the State of Connecticut, on the land records of each municipality. After recording, forward a copy of the above document (s) , evidencing the date of recording and the land record volume and page, to the Office of the State Traffic Commission (STC) , 2800 Berlin Turnpike, P.O. Drawer 317546, Newington, CT 06131-7546. Please forward instructions to Town Clerk. D O N 0 T R E C O R D T H I S P A G E Instructions to Town Clerk: The municipality clerk shall list the "State of Connecticut" as the grantor of the Certificate in the municipal land record indices. RETURN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS TO THE OWNER. Failure to comply with the above may cause the Certificate to become invalid. 616100 D 0 N O T R E C O R D T H I S P A G E NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER OF ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South Windsor and Jeffrey H. Folger, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Town of South Windsor 1. Gardner L. Chapman on or about the 13th day of June, 2000, received a Cease and Desist Order from the Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of South Windsor, a copy of which is attached hereto and made apart hereof (Exhibit A) . 2 . The streets referred to in the Cease and Desist Order are public streets in Chase Orchards Subdivision approved by the Town of South Windsor. 3 . The land making up Chase Orchards Subdivision was originally owned by the applicant, and the property was adjacent to his remaining land in Vernon. 4 . Before the sale of the South Windsor land to Chase Orchards, the South Windsor land was the only access to the Vernon land and was used by the applicant as his only access to the Vernon portion of his property. 5 . The applicant reserved to himself, his hers and assigns, an easement to use the streets in the Chase Orchards Subdivision for all purposes for which a highway may be used and to connect to said streets through the stubs shown on the subdivision map (Exhibit B) . 6 . The streets shown on the subdivision map became public streets when the subdivision was approved and building permits issued. 7. The subdivision regulations (C.3 Streets , c. Cul-de-Sac (Dead End) Streets) , require that the cul-de-sac street must extend to the property boundary and the subdivision plan must include the appropriate right of way for the extension to be deeded to the Town. 8 . The sections of the Zoning Regulations cited by the enforcement officer are legally and factually incorrect. LABELLE,LABELLE WHEREFORE, the applicant requests that the Board order NAAB&HORVATH.P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2S5 EAST CENTER ST. MANCHESTER,CT 06040 (860)647-7000 2 - I the Cease and Desist Order be rescinded, or such other order as in equity may be just. Respectfully submitted, GARDNER L. CHAPMAN By John D. LaBelle His Attorney 002Z I I� LABELLE.LABELLE NAAB&HORVATH,P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 295 EAST CENTER ST. MANCHESTER,CT 06040 (860)647-7000 ►�yw� �c�Lvl,l f� `0,M N 3(r,t '6 Toulin oie South V&U1,60t 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 s AREA CODE 860 /644-2511 R-Co June 7, 2000 CEASE AND DESIST Certified Mail Chase Associates John Doran �-�'t�( 2033 Ellington Road South Windsor, CT 06074 LOCATION: Avery Street, Chase Orchards Subdivision Cs� Ac� Dear Mr. Doran: ZONE: Rural Residential (RR) By this letter you are hereby notified that a violation of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations exists on the above referenced property. SOUTH WINDSOR REGULATION SECTION: Section 3.1, Compliance with provisions of the regulations. Section 3.4, Use of land for access and parking. TYPE OF VIOLATION: A multi-family zone in the town of Vernon is presently being accessed by a private access-way in a single family zone in South Windsor. The private access-way to the multi-family zone must be zoned for multi-family use, which is currently not the case. CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED: Immediately cease utilizing the present access for the purposes of developing a multi-family use. The use of land for access to or for parking in connection with and adjacent to a use, shall be considered to be accessory to and part of such use. The private access-way is in a RR zone and multi-family use is not an approved use in a RR zone. Failure to comply with the terms of this notice by July 7, 2000 will result in the violation being entered onto the land records and referral to the Town Attorney for legal action. If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at 644-2511, ext. 229. Sincerely, .! G^J Jeffrey H. Folger Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Officer CC: Planning/Zoning Commission Director of Planning Town Attorney✓ r �oN co TOWN OF VERNON *z8084 14 PARK PLACE,VERNON,CONN.06066 Tel: (860) 870-3667 OFFICE OF THE Fax: (860) 870-3580 TOWN PLANNER E-Mail: russellg®vemonconn.com Planning g&Zoning Commission L. U MAR 28 'ZtGutl Certified Mail:Z539-863-384 March 17, 2000 $� 1� i��tztiJJ,1 pt,il . ;iu r� : = Mr. Joseph Capossela 45 Hartford Turnpike PO Box K Vernon, Ct. 06066 Dear Mr. Capossela: At its March 16, 2000 meeting,the Planning&Zoning Commission voted to approve the special permit&site plan for Lot 3 of the Hockanum Crossing Subdivision for 424 multifamily units. This approval is effective 4/l/2000 and UPON THE RECORDING OF THIS LETTER AND THE ATTACHED FORM WITH THE TOWN CLERK. A signed copy of this letter must also be returned to the Town Planner's office within 15 days of the effective date or the approval is void. This approval was granted for the reasons outlined on Exhibit A and is subject to the following stipulations: 1. Architectuals and site plan mylars, size 24"x 36",class A2 or better, showing all stipulations of approval from all land use commissions and approved ESCP must be stamped"approved" and signed by the Planning&Zoning Commission and filed by the applicant with the Town Planner and Town Clerk by 7/1/2000; 2.The developer shall be responsible for erosion control as per the approved plan and any soil laden runoff issuing from the developer's site shall be considered a violation of this stipulation and shall be cleaned up prior to the final release of bonds; 3. A fully executed Hold Harmless Agreement in compliance with the Town of Vernon approved form must be submitted to the Town Planner; C:\WINDOWS\Personal\PZCapprovalletters.doc 4. Two performance bonds in the amounts of$607,650 and$20,000 in accordance with commission policy approved January 14, 1985,and amended to June 1, 1991,must be submitted to the Town Planner. This bond is subject to subsequent modification if additional plan review or modification so dictate. Failure to maintain said bonds shall result in the approval becoming void; 5. Construction drawings must be submitted to the Town Engineer prior to starting any site work; 6. "Foundation only"building permits may be obtained and site preparation work may commence if stipulations 3,4&5 are met; T All necessary permits/approvals must be obtained from the health department; 8. All improvements required under this approval must be completed by 4/1/2005 or the plan becomes void; 9. Fifty(50)per cent of the building foundations must be completed by 4/l/2002; 10. Dumpsters shall be provided during construction; 11. No on site burial of building materials or debris and a statement to this effect shall be submitted to the Town Planner; 12. One 42 square foot sign is approved, 13. Design Review stipulations are incorporated by reference and are to be shown on the mylars; 14. All necessary permits must be obtained from WPCA; 15. Traffic Authority stipulations are incorporated by reference and are to be shown on the mylars 16. Driveway permits are to be obtained from the Town Engineer; 17. All items must be completed prior to the final release of bonds; 18. Complete as built plans to be submitted to the Town Planner, and approved per Engineering Department Policy; 19.This approval is binding upon the developer,his heirs,assigns and grantees. This approval constitutes a contractual agreement between the Town of Vernon and the applicant,his heirs,assigns and grantees; 20. Failure to meet any of the dates specified in this approval shall render the approval null and void unless said date can be statutorily extended and is so extended by the commission; 21. The owner of Lot 3 shall have the responsibility to maintain the center island within Hockanum boulevard,including all grass,shrubs,trees and other landscaping,but excluding any repair or replacement of curbing; C:\WINDOWS\Personal\PZCapprovalletters.doc 22.The final specifications for all gates shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Fire Chief, Fire Marshal and Police Chief, 23.The developer shall install an emergency access from the mansions on lot 3 to either the proposed Quail Hollow development and ultimately to Dart Hill Rd. or to Kingsley Drive, South Windsor or both; 24. Light poles shall not exceed 20 feet in height; 25. In evaluating this application to the Town of Vernon has relied on information provided by the applicant or his agent and is such information subsequently proves to be false, deceptive, incomplete and/or inaccurate,the Town of Vernon reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this approval. The applicant hereby agrees to these contractual stipulations of approval. THIS LETTER MUST BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO THE TOWN PLANNER WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OR THE APPROVAL IS NULL AND VOID. Signed Date Sincerely, wt- Carl Bard, Chai Planning&Zoning Commission GHR/dr cc-PZ-2000-03 Ron Taft Gene Bolles C:\WINDOWS\Personal\PZCapprovalletters.doc 1 MEMORANDUM To: Vernon Planning and Zoning Commission From: Joseph P. Capossela, Esq. Date: March 2, 2000 Re: Hockanum Crossing Zoning Applications In support of their various zoning applications submitted in connection with the development of Hockanum Crossing,the applicants offer the following information to assist the Commission in making its findings: ubdivis' 1. The application and subdivision plan submitted by the applicants includes all information required by Section 5 of the Vernon Subdivision Regulations, 2. The proposed plan complies with all applicable criteria contained in the Vernon Subdivision Regulations. 3. In satisfaction of their open space obligations,the applicants propose to convey to the Town of Vernon approximately 11 acres of open space along the Hockanum River. This contribution of open space complies with the Master plan of Conservation and Development by: (a)dhw&g development away from sensitive areas (i.e.,the Hockanum River)while at the saam time allowing for growth and development; (b)protecting and preserving the Hockanum River by keeping activities within wetlands, the river and the 75' regulated area to a minimum; (c) allowing this land to be publicly accessible for recreational purposes; (d) creating a walking trail along the river,thereby contributing to the objectives of the Hockanum River Linear Park to establish a greenbelt corridor along the river, and(e)preserving a wildlife corridor along the Hockanum River. 4. The applicants' proposed subdivision contains sufficient special circumstances, as provided in Section 6.6.7.1 of the Subdivision Regulations,justifying a cul-de-sac in excess of 1500 feet in length,including: (a)the presence of difficult topographical conditions; (b)the minimization of environmental disturbance by providing for only 1 crossing of the river; (c)the possibility of future road extensions to adjoining parcels; (d) conformity with the Master plan of Conservation and Development; (e) availability of emergency access; (t) implementation of special highway design,i.e.,boulevards. In addition, the Vernon Traffic Authority has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has recommended this application for approval. Section 4.23 of the Zoning Regulations—MUD Special Permit 1. Light industrial uses and apartments are permitted within the Planned Mixed Use Development Zone upon satisfaction of the special permit criteria listed in Sections 4.23.5 and 17.3 of the Zoning Regulations. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that each individual use proposed on Lot 2, 3 and 4 will have a positive net fiscal impact to the Town of Vernon,with the total positive net fiscal impact of the entire proposed development being approximately $400,000.00. 3. In addition to providing a positive net fiscal impact,the proposed development is in accordance with the Master Plan of Conservation and Development,which has contemplated development of this property for over 20 years. Furthermore,the proposal makes provision for the general welfare of the Town of Vernon because it will provide approximately 11 acres of open space along the Hockanum River, and a walking path,for use and enjoyment by the public. 4. The proposed sign for Lot 3 complies with Section 16 of the Zoning Regulations in that it does not exceed 80 square feet. Section 5 of the Zoning Regulations—Special Flood Hazard Area Special Petm t The proposed development has been designed so as to minimize any impact on the flood hazard area and will not increase the likelihood of flooding or decrease the flood storage area. Section 14 of the Zonine Regulations—Site Plan 1. Complete applications and copies of the Site Plans depicting the proposed activities and new construction have been submitted by the applicants,which plans include all information required under Section 14.1.2.2 of the Zoning Regulations. 2. The applicants will be installing sidewalks along the entire northerly and westerly side of the proposed roadway. 3. The applications comply with all applicable provisions contained in the Zoning Regulation. Section 17.3 of the Z BLuZ Re ulations—Special Permit Criteria 1. The proposed uses are allowed with a special permit in the Planned Mixed Use Development zone and, as such, are suitable for this location. w 2. The proposed use of Lots 2 and 4(light industrial)is compatible with neighboring uses to the east,i.e.,the Town's recycling plant. 3. The proposed use of Lot 3 (multi-family)is compatible with neighboring uses to the west, i.e., South Windsor single family residences. This multi-family use provides an appropriate and desirable transition use between the South Windsor single family residences and the light industrial uses proposed within this development. 4. The proposed uses will not create a nuisance. The plans incorporate satisfactory landscaped buffering and aesthetically pleasing designs of the various buildings. The applicants have demonstrated,and the Vernon Traffic Authority has determined,that the proposed roadway will be able to accommodate the traffic to be generated by Hockanum Crossing. As such,the proposals will not produce material annoyance,inconvenience or discomfort. 5. The proposed activities will foster,not hinder,the long-anticipated development of this parcel of land. 6. The proposed activities conform to all applicable sections of the Zoning Regulations. Section 18 of the Zoning Regulations- Activities Reyuidne a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Dave Smith Engineering and Surveying,Assoc.,Inc.has provide comments based on his review of the plans for Hockanum Crossing. Upon incorporation of the same,Mr. Smith has certified that the erosion and sediment control plans meet the requirements of the Zoning Regulations. Section 20—Aquifer Protection 3Qecial Permit Testimony received by the applicants' environmental consultants,MM, demonstrate that the proposed activities will have no adverse effect on the aquifer. Section 21—Architectural &Design Review The Design Review Committee has review the applicants' architectural plans, landscaping plans and proposals for signage and lighting and has recommended the same for approval. 1 ' � • ■ �-g WIN Hill ♦ ♦ IOC, •; � �•.11111/ � �.�MIMI ale ►�� �����'!va �. IFS►� 1%i:i�� �t / �!W/Atfjk !4f r AN .. ' �� �• • �I►I I/ II III § 8.5 LAND USE AGENCIES Pt. I A'_ Ch. zoning plan.' When a zoning board of appeals considers and acts upon a _variance, it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity.2 A variance runs with the x an land and is a legal status granted to a specific parcel of land which passes dar: to subsequent owners.' The substantive requirements for a variance areie covered in Chapter 9. The procedural requirements are discussed in sections 17.5, 21.8 and 24.3. -' deci_ § 8.6 Reviewing Decisions of the Zoning Enforcement Au- and thority the Sections 8-6(a)(1) and 8-7 of the General Statutes allow the zoning the board of appeals to review decisions of the zoning enforcement officer, or mus official exercising the function of enforcing the zoning regulations, ty o ...:. en - eke 1s an appeal under these provisions, it b' dent acts administratively in a quasi-judicial capacity.' is de The zoning enforcement officer performs a ministerial function in undo determining whether to issue a certificate of compliance of a ro osed indel use with the zoning regulations.' An appeal to the board may originate faiiu: from any order, requirement of decision of the zoning enforcement officer or equivalent official in refusing to issue a zoning ` certificate of zoning compliance, or by attaching conditions to them zonir_ which are claimed to be illegal. A property owner may appeal to the depa board when the zoning enforcement officer i requ- issues a cease and order for a claimed violation of the zoningre desist time often an owner of adjacent regulations. When a person, or, if J property, claims that a zoning permit or certificate of compliance was improperly issued for a use or structure, this the refusal of a zoning enforcement officer to issue a cease and desist hpersc ad order can be the subject of an appeal under sections 8-6(a)(1) and 8-7 of had the General Statutes. The complaining party may also bring a direct, after independent action to enforce the zoning regulations when the zoning The enforcement officer refuses to act. Other cases allow direct actions for :' 't 8.5 _ appli. Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Stam- ' thirr 1. Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals of ford, 156 Conn. 619,620, 238 A.2d 400,401 boar':City of West Haven, 206 Conn. 362, 368, (1968); Spesa v.Zoning Board of Appeals of 372,537 A.2d 1030, 1035(1988). City of New London, 141 Conn. 653, 656, 2. Nielsen v.Zoning Board of A 109 A.2d 362,363(1954). 4' City of Hartford, 152 Conn. 120, 23, 203 2. Langer v. Planning and Zoning Com- Shilep.- A.2d 606, 608 (1964); Burr v. Rago, 120 mission of Town of Westport, 163 Conn. Conn. 287, 292, 180 A. 444, 446 (1935). 453,456,313 A.2d 44,46(1972). 128. 1 Conn. 3. Garibaldi v. Zoning Board of Appeals 3. Blum v. Lisbon Leasing Corporation, of City of Norwalk, 163 Conn.235,239, 303 173 Conn. 175, 180, 377 A.2d 280, 282 5. A.2d 743, 745 (1972); Reid v.Zoning Board (1977); Fitzgerald v. Merard Holding Co., of Toy of Appeals of Town of Lebanon, 235 Conn. 106 Conn. 475, 483, 138 A. 483, 486 (1927) 627,3= 850,859, 670 A.2d 1271, 1276(1996), quot- (plaintiffs did not have to exhaust adminis- ing this text; C.G.S.A. § 8-6(b), trative remedies by an appeal to the zoning 157.1 Cc § 8.6 board of appeals under section 8-7 and a Town direct attack was allowed upon the actions 575, 5- I. Lawrence v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the defendants in using their property of Town of North Branford, 158 Conn. 509, for allegedPei a 514, 264 A.2d 552, 555 (1969); Thorne v. tions). violations of the zoning regula- A 2d r Conn. 168 4- M Pt. I Ch. 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS § 8.6 .nd acts upon a an injunction where the plaintiff is a person specifically and materially runs with the damaged by a violation of the zoning ordinainces which has occurred or is d which passes likely to occur on another person's land.' a variance are discussed in Where an appeal is taken to the zoning board of appeals from a decision of the zoning enforcement officer, the procedure for processing and deciding the appeal is set by section 8-7 of the General Statutes. If rcement Au- the board refused to act upon and decide the appeal, a mandamus action can be brought to compel it to act; before there is a right to appeal to 3w the zoning the Superior Court under section 8-8 of the General Statutes the board -ent officer, or must make a decision since only a decision is appealable.' .ations, where While a person harmed by a zoning violation may bring an indepen- 3cision of that provisions, it dent action bypassing the zoning board of appeals, a property owner who is denied a zoning permit must appeal to the zoning board of appeals 1 function in under § 8-7. Failure to use that remedy precludes judicial review in an )f a proposed independent action to the Superior Court, based on the doctrine of MY originate failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.' enforcement Section 8-7 provides in part that an appeal may be taken to the =g permit or zoning board of appeals by any person aggrieved or by any officer, )ns to them department, board or bureau of an ppeal to the Y munici ali p ty aggrieved by the order, ' and desist requirement or decision of the zoning enforcement officer within the time period prescribed by a rule adopted by the zoning board of appeals en a person, or, if no such rule is adopted by the board, within thirty days. However, g permit.structure,or this concept only applies to the applicant, to the zoning official and to - and desist persons who had actual notice of the ruling or decision, and others who and 8-7 of had no notice may have standing to bring an injunction or similar action r .ng a direct, after the time limit to appeal to the zoning board of appeals has expired.' the zoning The great majority of zoning boards of appeal have not adopted time actions for limits for appeals on zoning enforcement decisions, so the thirty-day rule applies. City of Stam- A.2d 400, 401 3ofAppeals of ,. .. „ . _. )nn. 653, 656, 4. Reynolds v. Soffer, 183 Conn. 67, 69, S. Loulis v. Parrott, 241 Conn. 180, 438 A.2d 1163, 1164 (1981); Schomer v. 191-194, 695 A.2d 1040, 1047-1049 (1997); Zoning Corn_ Shilepsky, 169 Conn. 186, 194, 363 A.2d Phillips v. Darien Zoning Board of Appeals, t, 163 Conn. 128, 133 (1975); Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 20 Conn.L.Rptr. 257, 1997 WL 280126 2)• Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222, 226 (1971). (1997). Corporation, 9. Phillips v. Darien Zoning Board of .2d 280, 282 5. Palmieri v. Zoning Board of Appeals Appeals, 20 Conn.L.Rptr. 257, 1997 WL Holding Co., of Town of Westport, 32 Conn-Sup- 625, 280126 (1997)(late appeal from decision of 3, 486 (1927) 627,349 A.2d 731, 733(1975). zoning enforcement officer allowing filing of lust adminis- 7. Country Lands, Inc. v. Swinnerton, a map showing property as two parcels). .o the zoning 151 Conn.27,33, 193 A.2d 483, 486(1963); Koepke v.Zoning Board of Appeals of Town n 8-7 and a Town of Greenwich v. Kristoff, 180 Conn. of Coventry, 223 Conn. 171, 178, 610 A.2d i the actions 575, 578, 430 A.2d 1294, 1296 (1980), ap- 1301, 1304 (1992); see Putetti v. Zoning Lei' property peal after remand 2 ConnApp. 980 4 P- Board of Appeals of Chester,2 Conn.Super. ning regula- peal after (1ema certification denied 481 Ct.Rpts. 159 (1987); Davis v. Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals of Greenwich, 1 Conn.807,483 A.2d 275(1984). Conn.Super.Ct.Rpts.537(1986). 169 LAND USE AGENCIES Pt. I Cl There is no jurisdiction where an appeal is not taken to the zoning board of appeals within 30 days (or the period stated in the zoning regulations) from when the zoning permit is issued, since the provision re. in § 8-7 is mandatory." No notice is required of the re. zoning permit, and the time limit runs from the date of the decis onf of be the zoning enforcement officer." Where the zoning enforcement officer ca: revoked a zoning permit and issued a new permit after the property In` owner submitted a revised application and plot plan, the time limit for wh an appeal to the zoning board of appeals was properly calculated from `* de: the issuance of the second permit; the zoning board of appeals had pr( jurisdiction to decide if the zoning enforcement officer had authority to the revoke the first permit and hear the appeal from the second permit." ' the In some cases an initial decision of the zoning enforcement officer may not be an appropriate order to appeal, appeal period runs from a later, more definitive athich on.13case the 30-day An unresolved ved for question is whether the refusal of a zoni zor o revoke a claimed off ng official t invalid permit is subject to an appeal to the zoning board of appeals, and `r if so whether an appeal must be taken within 30 days of the request or sor refusal to revoke the zoninganother =� for that the refusal to revoke permit is notppealable.stat"'1Ho a et has re it has bus been held that a zoning board of a tior returning an application where the zoning did not at arbitrarily in _ wh act on an application when thePlanning enforcement officer failed to suc ssion had vio� instructed him not to issue certificates of zoning coand mpliancecom forfor a use cor. which the commission claimed was not permitted; the rationale for the boa b boa decision was that the zoning enforcement officer was not enforcing a are zoning regulation, but to issue a permit which he had no authority to #. Ger issue, which was not an action under § 8-6, and therefore not the Ber basis Y for an appeal to the zoning board of appeals under sections 8-7 and to wa the Superior Court under § 8-8.11, tow clai 10. Koepke v. Zoning Board of Appeals 403,620 A.2d at 815,816. Bosley v.Zoning me. of Town of Coventry, 30 Conn-APP. 395, Board of A 398-99, 620 A.2d 811, 813-14 (1993) ud - p�'� of City of New Haven, 30 zon: 98- reversed on other '1 g Conn.App. at 800 n. 2, 622 A.2d at 1022 n. grounds 230 Conn. 2. Stauffer v. the 452, 645 A.2d 983 (1994); Bosley v. Zoning A Ansonia Zoning Board of Board of Appeals of City of New Haven, 30 Appeals, 1 Conn.Ops. 1166, 1995 WL a rE Conn.App. 797, 800, 622 A.2d 1020, 1022 574513(1995); Loulis v. Parrott,241 Conn. revs 180, 193(1993); Farricielli v. Town of Hamden Zon- ,695 A.2d 1040, 1048(1997). use ing Board of Appeals, 17 Conn.L.Rptr. 72 12. Koepke v. Zoning Board of A zon: (1996)(holding that the Superior Court had of Town of Coventry, 230 Conn. 452,p458s aft no jurisdiction because the zoning board of 645 A.2d 983,986(1994). appeals had no jurisdiction over a late ap- 16. peal, but noting that a declaratory13• ASL Associates v. Proch, 3 Conn, of M, ment action might be available to ,rai a L.Rptr. 28, 29, 1990 WL 265336 (1990). constitutional issues); Phillips v. Darien 14. Wright v. Town of Kennebunkport, 1/ Zoning Board of Appeals, 30 Conn.L.Rptr. 715 A.2d 162(Me.1998). 18 257, 1997 WL 280126(1997). Zonis e11. Ko 15. Jeckel v.Zoning Board of Appeals of ps: epke v. Zoning Board of Appeals Town of North Stonin S of Town of Coventry, 30 Conn-App. at 402, 192, 1998 WL 46270(1998n 4 Conn.Ops. New A.2d 170 Pt. I Ch. 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS § 8.6 ?n to the zoning The zoning board of appeals is given the authority to pass a i in the zoning regulation setting another time period for an appeal to it, but once the 2e the provision regulation has been adopted it is not subject to waiver by the board e granting of a because nothing in the enabling statute gives it that power.18 In most the decision of cases measurement of the thirty-day time limit is not difficult because )rcement officer the zoning enforcement officer makes a clear order on a particular date. it the property In some cases it may be difficult to determine when action is taken time limit for where there is a failure to act by the zoning enforcement officer and calculated from dealings between the parties continue over a period of time. The statute of appeals had provides that the appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal specifying id authority to the grounds for it with the zoning commission or the officer from whom �cond permit.12 the appeal has been taken and with the zoning board of appeals." 'cement officer Sometimes a question exists whether a decision of a building inspec- Lse the 30-day tor, the zoning commission or some-other official is appealable to the An unresolved zoning board of appeals, namely whether the official or agency. is "the Joke a claimed official charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations." In )f appeals, and some municipalities the same person serves as both the building inspec- the request or for and the zoning enforcement officer. Where the decision is made by a has been held building inspector on a question of compliance with the zoning regula- :)wever, it has tions, that decision is appealable to the zoning board of appeals, at least arbitrarily in where the building inspector is authorized by the municipality to rule on ficer failed to such questions.18 On the other hand, if the building inspector's decision emission had concerns compliance with the state building code or a non-zoning code ace for a use violation, that would not be a matter which is appealable to the zoning board of appeals. Claims of error in rulings on construction techniques bnale for the are made to the building board of appeals under section 29-266 of the t enforcing a General Statutes. In Miniter v. Zoning Board o authorityto g f Appeals of Town of Berlin,"' the decision of a building inspector denying a building permit not the basis was appealable to the zoning board of appeals because he was also the ss 8-7 and to town's zoning enforcement officer, and the permit was denied for a claimed non-compliance with the zoning ordinance. A zoning enforce- ment officer must issue a zoning permit if the application meets the 30sley v.Zoning zoning regulations.20 New Haven, 30 A.2d at 1022 n. A related question is whether there the right to appeal the failure of ming Board of the zoning enforcement officer or zoning inspector to make a decision on 66, 1995 WL a request or application, such as a request for a zoning permit or to rott,241 Conn. revoke a permit which has been made, or failure to decide if an existing 1(1997). use is a zoning violation. In one case it was held that the failure of the and of Appeals zoning enforcement officer to grant a certificate of zoning compliance ann. 452, 458, after an application, which was returned without any action taken on it, 16. Scarano v. Zoning Board of Appeals 19. 20 Conn.App. 302, 304, 566 A.2d roch, 3 Conn. of Meriden,3 Conn.L.Rptr. 374,376(1991). 997,998(1989). 65336 (1990). 17. C.G.SA.§ 8-7. 18. Canoe Brook Lake Association v. 20. Langer v. Planning and Zoning 'nnebunkport, Zoning Board of Appeals of Trumbull, 18 Commission of Town of Westport, 163 Conn.L.Rptr. 639, 1997 WL 41223 (1997). Conn. 453, 456, 313 A.2d 44, 46 (1972) of Appeals of Spesa v.Zoning Board of Appeals of City of (holding that this is a ministerial function). 4 Conn.Ops. New London, 141 Conn. at 654, 655, 109 A.2d at 363. 171 8.6 LAND USE AGENCIES Pt. I Ch. S " was not an error in "any order, requirement or decision" within § 8- 6(a)(1) of the General Statutes, so that the zoning board of a eals lion do properly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal retain. under that statute and § 8-7, since no order was issued, no requirement decisio enfor E was imposed and no decision was made." This is similar to decisions commi. from other states." Since a decision on whether enforce zoning regula- cannot tions is discretionary, there is no also no right to appeal the refusal of the zoning enforcement officer to bring an enforcement action to the zoning zoning board of appeals. on the Under § 8-3(f) of the General Statutes, neither a buildingadd nor a certificate of occupancy can be issued without a written ertifica- comi tion from the zoning enforcement officer that the proposed structure decisio also ill conforms to the zoningregulations gulations or is a valid non-conforming use. board Zoning regulations may be enforced by refusal to grant a building permit enforc( or certificate of occupancy where the property is not in conformity with review the zoning regulations. Pr ' ters 1" underl- ing s ar_ In violatic applica s The court conc u in onto that since there was a right to appeal the decision of the zoning commission to the zoning officer. the co: board of appeals that failure to do so required dismissal of the appeal for PPe A applica failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.2' While the zoning appeal: regulations in the Conto case provided for review by the zoning board of of the appeals of any order or decision made by the zoning commission or a Where zoning enforcement officer, since the powers of the zoning board of decisio: appeals are set by statute, the right to appeal exists based on §§ 8- When 6(a)(1) and 8-7 of the General Statutes, whether or not the zoning 8-6a, t regulations specifically provide for an appeal to the zoning board of board 17 appeals. of the The zoning commission decides the manner in which the zoning In regulations are enforced, namely who acts as the zoning enforcement officer officer. The zoning regulations are then enforced by the officer, board interpr or authority designated in the regulations." Where the zoning commis- proper-. 21. Jeckel v.Zoning Board of Appeals of 24. Conto v. Zoning Commission of 30. C the Town of North Stonington, 4 Conn. Town of Washington, 186 Conn. 106, 114, of Citv Ops. 192, 1998 WL 46270(1998). 439 A.2d 441, 445 (1982); see also section 580 A.2c 22. Tate v. Board of Adjustment of City 48.14. grounds of Asheville, 83 N.C.App. 512, 350 S.E.2d 25. 186 Conn.at 117,439 A.2d at 446. (1991). 873 (N.CApp.1986); Hilbert v. Haas, 54 26. 186 Conn,at 114,439 A.2d at 445. 31. Misc.2d 777, 283 N.Y.S.2d 440, 441 (1967). 27. Ogalin v.Planning and Zoning Com- 530. 23. Section 8,3(f) C.G.SA; Leo Fedus mission of Oxford, 1 Conn.L.Rptr. 712, 1990 32. 2 &Sons Construction Co.v.Zoning Board of WL 284008(1990). 531. Appeals of Town and Borough of Colches- 28. C.G.SA.§ 8-3(e). 33. C ter,27 ConnApp.412,606 A.2d 725(1992). 29. C.G.SA. § 8-12. of City c 593 A.2c 28 Com 172 31 Pt. I Ch. 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS § 8.6 n" within § 8- sion designates someone as the zoning enforcement officer and does not and of appeals retain control or veto power over the zoning enforcement officer's hear an appeal decisions, section 8-7 vests the power to review decisions of the zoning io requirement enforcement officer in the zoning board of appeals.30 Unless the zoning ar to decisions commission retains authority to act as the zoning enforcement officer, it zoning regula- cannot by its own resolution revoke a permit previously granted by the the refusal of zoning enforcement officer, and its attempt to do so is void as infringing action to the on the exclusive jurisdiction of the zoning board of appeals.31 In addition, if the zoning enforcement officer at the direction of the zoning uilding permit commission or one of its members implements the void and illegal -itten certifica- decision of the zoning commission by revoking the permit, that action is osed structure also illegal and beyond the scope of his authority, requiring the zoning nforming use. board of appeals to vacate the decision. The motives of the zoning uilding permit enforcement officer are irrelevant to the jurisdiction of the board_ to �nformity with review the revocation of the permit33 Procedures before the zoning board of appeals are covered in Chap- ght to enforce ters 17, 20 and 21 and the effect of appeals to the board on the the duties of underlying orders or decisions appealed from, including stays of proceed- to the zoning ings and enforcement, are discussed in Chapter 40. charged with In many cases a property owner faced with a claim of a zoning ted to appeals violation simultaneously files with the zoning board of appeals a variance 1 or denial of application and an appeal from the decision of the zoning enforcement e there was a officer. The applications are heard at the same time, and both require ;o the zoning the concurring vote of four members of the board. While the two -he appeal for applications may be joined and heard together, the zoning board of ile the zoning appeals must decide the issues presented in the appeal from the decision ning board of of the zoning enforcement officer before ruling on the variance request.3' 'mission or a Where the board failed to decide an appeal from denial of a permit, its .ing board of decision granting a variance was set aside for violating C.G.S.A. § 8-6a.' sed on §§ 8- When a party applies for both actions under §§ 8-6(a)(1), 8-6(a)(3) and t the zoning 8-6a, the board must decide the appeal under section 8-6(a)(1). If the .ing board of board denies the appeal, it must then act upon the request for a variance of the zoning regulations under section 8-6(3)." i the zoning enforcement officer, board # -ung commis- Commission of 30. Caserta v. Zoning Board of Appeals 34. C.G.SA.§ 8-6a. Conn. 106, 114, of City of Milford, 23 ConnApp. 232, 235, 35. Wnuk v.Zoning Board of Appeals of see also section 580 A.2d 528,530(1990),reversed on other grounds 219 Conn. 352, 593 A.2d 118 City of New Britain, 225 Conn. 691, 696, 9 A.2d at 446. (1991). 626 A.2d 698,700(1993). 9 A.2d at 445. 31. 23 Conn.App. at 235, 580 A.2d at 36. Minter v. Zoning Board of Appeals 530. of Town of Berlin, 20 Conn.App. 302, 306, ad Zoning Co 32. 23 ConnApp. at 237, 580 A.2d at 309,566 A.2d 997,999, 1000(1989). .Rptr. 712, 1990 531. 37. Stern v.Zoning Board of Appeals of 33. Caserta v. Zoning Board of Appeals City of Norwich, 140 Conn. 241, 245, 99 of City of Milford, 219 Conn. 352,361, 363, A.2d 130, 132 (1953); Molic v. Zoning 593 A.2d 118, 123, 124 (1991), on remand Board of Appeals of Town of Redding, 18 28 ConnApp. 256, 610 A.2d 713 (1992). 173 § 8.6 LAND USE AGENCIES Pt. I W. - r. - t `S..A r r § 8.7 Review of Location Approvals As previously discussed in §§ 4.25 and 8.3, one of the functions of t the zoning board of appeals is to act as an agent of the state in reviewing t location approvals for gasoline service stations, repairers§ licenses and new and used car dealerships. In passing on an application for location approval of a service station under sections 14-321 and 14-322, the 0 board acts as an agent of the state, and its sole function is to determine 1 if the site in question is suitable according to specific statutory criteria in C section 14-322 which are designed to promote and protect public safety.' C Under section 14-322, the board considers whether the location is suitable for the sale of t gasoline and other products after considering the 0 proximity of schools, churches, theaters.or playhouses or other places of lc public gatherings, intersecting streets, traffic conditions, width of the highway and the effect upon public travel. A second requirement is that a the use of the proposed location will not imperil the safety of the public.' A certificate of approval cannot be issued by the board for a location b where a gasoline station would be in violation of the zoning regulations.' is However, obtaining a certificate of approval is not a zoning matter, so 0 the application for the gasoline station permit itself is not reviewed by V the board.' The board is performing a special statutory function as an c, agent of the states lc ConnApp. 159, 165, 556 A2d 1049, 1052 (1956); Atlantic Refining Co, v, Zoning !? (1989). See also section 33.7. Board of Appeals of Town of Milford, 142 b 38. Werner v. Zoning Board of Appeals Conn.64, 66, 111 A.2d 1, 2 (1955); Herrup V. of Town of Easton, 24 Conn.App. 393, 395, v City of Hartford, 140 Conn.622,628, 103 P. 588 A.2d 664,665(1991). A.2d 199,202(1954). § 8.7 2. C.G.SA. § 14-322; Socony Mobil Co. pf 1. Helfant v.Zoning Board of Appeals of V. Zoning Board of Appeals of City of En- 2= Town of Wilton, 153 Conn. 93,95,214 A.2d field, 153 Conn. at 259, 216 A.2d at 202. 371, 373 (1965); Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. 3. Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Board of Ap- B. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of En- peals of Town of Hamden, 154 Conn.32,35, 1` field. 153 Conn.257,259,216 A.2d 201,202 221 A.2d 267, 269 (1966); Consiglio v. Q (1965); McDermott v. Zoning Board of Ap- Board of Zoning Appeals of New Haven, 153 A: peals of Town of West Haven, 150 Conn. Conn. 433, 435, 217 A2d 64, 65 (1966). 3( 510, 511, 191 A.2d 551, 552 (1963); Esso 01 Standard Oil Co. v. Zoning Board of Ap- 4. Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Board of Ap- Ct peals of West Hartford, 148 Conn.507, 508, peals of Town of Hamden, 154 Conn.at 35, 172 A.2d 607, 608 (1961); Dubiel v.Zoning 221 A.2d at 269. B( Board of Appeals of Town of East Hartford, 5. McDermott v. Zoning Board of Ap- 1` 147 Conn. 517, 520, 162 A.2d 711, 713 peals of Town of West Haven, 150 Conn. at 42 (1960); Silver Lane Pickle Co. v. Zoning 511,512, 191 A.2d at 552; Dubiel v.Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of East Hartford, Board of Appeals of Town of East Hartford, R 143 Conn. 316, 319, 122 A.2d 218, 219 147 Conn,at 520, 162 A.2d at 713. C` 174 .t_ YG, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. § 87 i is on applicant for variance from zoning Fairfield (1999) 736 A-2d 167, 54 ConnApp. 559, to prove hardship. Kelly v.Zoning Bd. certification granted in part 739 A.2d 1248, 251 Is of Town of Hamden (1990) 575 A.2d Conn 911. onnApp.594. iew by board of earlier decision _ § 8-6a. Appeal to be heard before variance when both joined i v. Board of Zoning Appeals (1939) 7 f )p. 509, (main volume] affirmed 16 A.2d Library References ^.onn.307. Connecticut Practice _ s within discretion of zoning board of yap- '. 6§9 Connecticut Practice 8. .Y view second application for variance as a -Fuller, , Lion outside scope of statute permitting decline to hear application for same or '.::Notes of Decisions 1 ally the same variance,particularly where Remand 1 building permit before board can act on applicant's son had been filed more than six monthsr. - request for variance. Wnuk v. Zoning Bd of Ir Fernandes v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals Appeals of City of New Britain (1993) 626 A.2d (1991) 586 A.2d 703, 24 Conn. '� 1. Remand -'-`n: .-"�,: '>:•_ '698,226 Conn.691. certification granted in part 591 A.2d 811, -Zoningboard of appeals must decide applicant's 909. appeal from zoning enforcement officer's denial of anent to statute, as well as another atat pining a similar time constraint, which § 8-7. Appeals to board. Hearin at no zoning board shall be required to "" Hearings. ,Effective elate of exceptions or variances; ' application for variance of substantially .filing requirements land as that which the board or a court " i upon within the previous six months,do sle common-law rule that a Zoning Board : . i a is prohibited'from reversing its previ I ion unless the facts and circumstances k mated the decision are shown to'have ,An appeal may be taken to-the.zoning board of appeals is to vitiate or materially affect the rep: = by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department,'board or bureau of any municipality r produced and supported the earlier&6 aggrieved and shall be.taken within such time_as is prescribed by a rule adopted by said r. s;v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of .1, board,or,if no such rule is adopted by.the.board;within thirty days,by filing with the zoning 81989) 565 A.2d 14, 41 Conn.Supp. MS.. commission or the officer from whom the appeat him linen-taken and with said board a notice Board of Appeals'decision to grant land- of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. :. wiance to divide his land was an abuse of f. and an arbit rary act, where the Board •:� Me msly denied a substantially similar appH- • An aPPS shall not-stay•any such order, requirement or had the Superior Court. Root v.Zoning 'f decision which prohibits_further construction or expansion of a use in violation of such zoning peals of Town of Madison(1989)59 A.2d regulations except to such;extent'that the board grants a stay thereof. An appeal from any =Supp.218. f. other order, requirement or dedaion.shau stay_all proceedings in the action appealed from .� • i - unless the zoning commission or the officer from whom'.the:appeal has been taken certifies to m�idicata the zoning board of appeals after the notice of appeal has been filed that by reason of facts icata did not preclude reconsideration of stated in the certificate a stay would cause imminent to life or f from which no appeal was taken even ;' P PrePert3'� in which case f; Mute existed which would affect variance proceedings shall not be stayed,-except by a restraining order which may be granted by a tote did not exist at time variance was W. court of record on application, on:notice to the zoning.commission or the officer from whom the has been taken and on due cause shown,.:.. - Reid v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town '`" •�� .: • n(1996) 670 A.2d 1271, 235 Comm 850.vding H{ I. Hers Aio sought to invalidate"no rental" of setback variance after time for statu- = " d passed lacked third-party standing to lament that condition was based on un- "' oil ic. ejudice against renters. Gangemi v. .. At such hearing any PAY may appear mi person i.of Appeals of Town of Fairfield(1999) '` and may be re resented b ent orb .attorne �� 67,54 ConnApp.559,certification grant- ` , M9 A.2d 1248,251 Conn.911. `' ohm Few by court -.1 superior court determined that a "no Whenever a zoning board of appeals grants or ►' idition attached to variance was not denies any special exception or variance in,the zoning re per - g ...gulations applicable to any PreP�Y .instead, ran with the land, Appellate or sustains or reverses wholly or.partly any-order,requirement or decision appealed from,it called upon to review le shall state upon its records the reason.for its decision-and the zoning bylaw, ordinance or t." P gal conclusions ' P -court,and thus,review would be plena ' regulation which is varied in its.application_or to_which An exception is granted and, when a sni v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals of Town of ', variance is granted, describe specifically.the exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship on 8-7 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. . ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ET which its decision is based. Notice of the decision of the board shall be published in -a Special notice requirements for public hear -which having a substantial circulation in the municipality and addressed by certified mail see Land Use Law and Practice, VoL 9, Fi to any person who appeals to the board, by its secretary or clerk, under his signature in any § 17.10. written, printed, typewritten or stamped form, within fifteen days after such decision has '-` Special permits, notice requirements for p. been rendered. In any case in which such notice is not published within such fifteen-day`�' hearings, see Land Use Law and Practice, Vc period, the person who requested or applied for such special exception or variance or took Fuller,§ 17.3. such appeal may provide for the publication of such notice within ten days thereafter. Such Time limits for agency action on land use a exception or variance shall become effective upon the filing of a copy thereof(1)in the office x` cations, see Land Use Law and Practice, Vc of the town, city or borough clerk, as the case may be, but, in the case of a district, in.the - Fuller,§ 23.1. offices of both the district clerk and the town clerk of the town in which such district is Titles and administrative and legislative located and (2) in the land records of the town in which the affected premises are located,in lions of land use agencies,see Land Use Lav accordance with the provisions of section 8-3d. - - 4 Practice,Vol 9,Fuller,§ 1.6. (1989,PA 89456,§ 13.) _ -__ .Variances; conditions,limitations on agenc% .f thority, see Land Use Law and Practice, Vo Historical and Statutory Notes c;s,Kyd, �' ; Fuller,§..22.18. :. ,..-.:,: :c•. : , :. Amendments who requested or.applied for such special Variances, tests for judicial review, see L 1989 Amendment. 1989,P.A.89-W,§ 13,pro- tion or variance or took such appeal may provide. Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 33.6. vided that in any case in which such notice is not for the publicanon of su ch notice within ten days �` ' = L-r.. - published within the fifteen-day period,the person thereafter. _... =7c .:;9;3J. iilir " . .pGJ? :5^L ^}•: 6? _...,.. i.rt r•i: Note Library References , V 3: Cbn'cucrin vote of board Connecticut Practice Notice requirements; failure to give notice, see . Concurring vote of four members of Zo: __... Land Use Law and Practice,VoL 9,Fuller,§:46.L•- Board of Appeals was required to vary zo: Fuller,9 Connecticut Practice$§ 2I 2,23.3. " regulations, and thus Zoning Board of App :~Administrative -remedies under land use stet- Procedures for land use.applicatiobs',in genera, - could not act unless there were four quah uies, see Land Use Law and Practice, Vol. 9, •see Land Use Law and Practice,.Vol"9,,Fuller,_ members.present and voting. 'S.I.S. Enterpr. Fuller, §�48.3. § 2 3 ... .. ;•r: .. ;.e-.,i e pg4x- Inc. v� Zoning. Bd. of Appeals of City of Br. .n' u _ AlI il � ' Professional offices as accessory' `" "Agency resolutions of land use applications; zon- ry tise, 94,Tdn3' (1993)635 A.2d 835,33 CormApp..28L . ,•. ink board of appeals, see Land Use Law and Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,g 421.-:vsott_ Actual presence of three members of Zo: Practice,Vol 9,Fuller,§ 21'.8 Publication `of variances; "appeala to-t oirin Board.of Appeals, at meeting of board at wi a�' board of a Appeal from decision of zonfng enforcement off- PPe�+ `�Pecial permits; "add si6a'p7arist applicaat'a request for variance was denied, c ce'r, tests for judicial review, see Land'Use Law see Land Use Law and Practice,-'tool::%)-A ter bind with.absentee a ballot of member who wa '§nd Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 33.7. § 24.3. !. .:ter:.; xr „�:�;± i-lcy�Trxs :- 1;kWsl ' hospital, was not tantamount fa there'being _ r V. d members of board present and vot $uildin inspector,see Land Use Law and Prac- Quorum i equirements for qualified g p agency action oir Idlid and thus Board's denial of variance was ineffec: lice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 12.6. - L '-':r�' ._ .tare application;•.humber of votes requika4,;sth t.,• matter was riot thoroughly debated and discus Cases involving exhaustion of adrafnfstrat ive ;Land Use.Law and Practice,.V4 9;Fuller;§::21:& at meeting by all those.who were to vote S. 'remedies,see Land Use Law and Practice,Vol:"9, Reasons for 'a'variance; 'judicial"review;"see Enterprises,Inc v..Zonfng Bd. of Appeals of Fuller,§ 48.4. Land Use Law and Practice,Vol..9;:F br,,§ 95 nn-App. - ... ., ... ,.._ ' :�.�.:•,} ,ri•f; r; of Bristol (1993)635 A.2d 836, 33 Co `Coastal site plan applications, see land Use Recording requirements for variances and , Law and Practice,Vol 9,Fuller,§ 6A' '"'=' '' '-''t vial permits,see Land Use Law and Practice; 'Exhaustion of remedies :" i "Considerations by applicant before commencing,.. 9,Fuller,§ 24.7. ';'.-: 'r'; _,, b :� :*� -tact `�Town of Beacon Falls v. Posick(1988)549 public hearing, '~' ' 1156, 17 ConnApp. 17;[main volume] certifies• p ng, see Land Use Law and Practice, " Regular and alternate members of zonlRe-.6o'• granted in'pait 552 A.2d 1217, 209 Conn. Vol.9,Fuller,§ 20.5. ;' of appeals; terms of office and diiiqualification;"see reversed on other grounds 663 A.2d 285,212 C ' 'Content of agency resolutions concerning land Land Use Law and Practice,Vol 9,,-Fuller;§18.2. 570. 1-1 ' _,,.,•", use application, see Land Use Law and Practice, ' ' :Regulating without adopting regulations;litnita, Plaintiffs who were challenging issuance of VoT 9,Fuller,$ 21.7. .' - = tions on agency authority, see Land Use Law-aiid ing certificate to third ply could not be deer 'Date of public hearing, see Land Use Law and Practice;Vol.9,Fuller,§ 222 �,:o ;':.-t n:;c:r to have failed'to exhaust administrative a e" Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 18.3. PP Review by inland wetlands�agency of certain process where plaintiffs hid no actual or coast Enforcement proceedings while appeals are Zoning and planning applications; gee Land Use tive notice of issuance of zoning certificate pending, stays, see Land Use Law and Practice, -Law and Practice,Vol 9,Fuller,§,11.6: :;Srr: 5tic there was no provision in zoning regulations Vol.9,Fuller,§ 40.4. " :::c such notice. ' LouMs v. Parrott (1997) 695 . '"'Review by zoning board of appeals'of decisions '- 1040,241 Conn.180. Failure to publish notice 'of agent yoi decision, of zoning enforcement-authority, see='I;and Use eee 'Land Use Law and Practice, Vol. 9 :Fuller Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 8:6 :"`s - " 3vsn Exhaustion of administrative remedies doer $ 46.4. Sequence of issues decided in adminii ti"ve'ap= " does not preclude one party from bringing -Injunctions Injunctions and temporary restraining orders, peal, see Land Use Law and' Practice, VbL 9, action to challenge alleged zoning violation by other legal remedies inland use cues, see Land 'Fuller,§ 34.2. JIt.•. ._:'L:_' 'J't iJ._. .; ttc,~a other party where that other party would be as Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§:41.L et seq. "- r -� quired to undertake, but has not yet undertal. Site plans,direct appeal to`supenor7cotn•t,'see administrative proceedings concerning conduct Lot dimensions, see Land Use Law and Prac Land Use Law and Practice, Vol 9; Fritter, derlying alleged violation. Loulis v.Parrott(11 lice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 4.30. ---_-._: .-.: ;Ter_ V48.14. --_ t -:;�.is �i.0"M t:GCS[.' 695 A.2d 1040,241 Conn.180. �NING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. § 8--.7 Note s in of the board shall be published in a Special notice requirements for public hearings, Writs of mandamus on land use issues,see Land inicipality and addressed by certified mail see Land Use Law and Practice, VoL 9, Fuller, Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 39.1 et seq. etary or clerk under his signature in an § 17.10. �Bn Y Zoning board of appeals; variances and appeals thin fifteen days after such decision has Special permits, notice requirements for public 'from ZOning enforcement officer, notice require- is not published within such fifteen-day hearings, see Land Use Law and'Practice,Vol. 9, ments for public hearings,see Land Use Law and ich special exception or variance or took Fuller,§ 17.3. Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 17.5. i notice within ten days thereafter. Such Time limits for agency action on land use a li- Zoning commission; changes in zoning regula- PP bons or boundaries; notice requirements for public -le filing of a copy thereof(1) in the office cations, see Land Use Law and practice, VOL 9, hearings,see Land Use Law and Practice, VOL 9, be, but, in the case of a district, in the Fuller,§ 23.1. Fuller,§ 17Z rk of the town in which such district is Titles and administrative :and legislative'AMC- Zoning controls; special permits, see Land Use hich the affected premises are located,in tions of land use agencies,see_Land Use Law and Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 3.7. 7r. ' Practice,VOL 9,Fuller,§ 1.6. Zoning enforcement officer, see Land Use Law -:- ,:n• . _ and Practice,VOL 9,Fuller,§ 12.5. J 'Variances; conditions,limitations on agency au- Zo ' orders; a nmg ap- tory Notes ., .. . th0ri�'� see Land Use Law and -,Zoning PPe� � � board of Practice, VOLVoL 9, gs agency orders, see ' Fuller,§2Z.18. Peals, �Y of proceedings on § 40.L � ,: : E•,a, , Laud Use Law and Practice,VOL 9,Fuller, requested or:applied for such special excep- Variances, tests far judicial review, see Land Zoning permits, see Land Use Law and Prao- or variance or took such appeal may provide Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,¢ 88.6: - tic¢,VOL 9,Fuller,$ 6.6. he publication of such notice within ten days ti - a c r. ., �:7J j, ?after. -- .7_ , ..` ;, '-...�.'i i'1 .it:" ,`..'77ti.Il /..rA...3)'•_). 1\�te8�f Decision •, ' ... :1 ..4 ., ncea 3. Concurring vote of board' - ,; .,7 :�i.err; Even if notice of certification of zoningcom pli_ �tice requirements; failure to 'k` Concurring vote of f9ur:members of_Zo ' anee for req give notice, see Board of nmg proposed liquor store by newspaper publi- I Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 46.1. Appeals was required to vary..zoning cation of notice of application for permit and physi- regulationa, and. thus Zoning Board of..Appeals cal posting of notice at site satisfied principle that 'ocedures for Iand use applicetions;in general, must be �� Land Use Law and Practice, Vol. 9, Fuller, could not act unless there were four qualified right to:appeal prec by adequate members present and voting. B.I.S Enterprises, ice, such notice was insufficient to invoke dos '' n• Inc. v, Zoning. Bd. of Appeals of:City:of_Briatol trine of exhaustion of administrative remedies to ofessional offices as accessory use, see I;snd (1993)635 A2d 835,33 Co 28L .,� Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 421. •c_;a " - +°iPP. . ";' •"' bar.challenge to certification in court by existing Actual presence of three members of'Zoning liquor store owner who did not receive any other blication 'Of.-variances; 'appeals to"zoning : Board.of Appeals, at meeting of-board at which type of.hotice; notice by publication and posting i of appeals; special permits; and site plans, applicant's request for variance.yvaa cleated,.� rate- .was performed pursuant to statutory scheme asps- �and Use Law and Practice, Vol' 9, Fuller, bined with,absentee ballot of member who was in , from;fig statutes, and did not give con- 3. :. .:: :^s hospital, was not tantamount:to there•being.four structive notice that local zoning official has certi. orum requirements for agency action on land q�ed members of board present and.voting, fed.that premises were approved for liquor license and thus Boards denial of variance w7is ineffective application; number of votes required, see ; under local zoning regulations. Loulis v. Parrott Use Law and Practice,VOL 9,Fuller,§21.3. matter was not thoroughly debated and discussed (1997)695 A.2d 1040,241 Conn.180.at meeting by all those who were to vote..T7 Li S ,•,,. ., „•.,�, asons for a variance; judicial review,'see Enterprises,Inc;v..Zoning 13d.of Appeals of City •Before instituting action based on allegation of a Use Law and Practice,Vol. 9, Fuller, § 9 5. of Bristol(1993).686 A.2d 835,.38�Cotui.App...281. faking of.landowner"s property, landowner - claim-cording requirements for variances and spe- 5. Exhaustion'of ietnedies '" : —_:t.r' fir.+n•..: ing the taking as result of denial of permit was not )ermits,see Land Use Law and Practice,VOL Town of Beacon Falls v:l'osick�(1986)649 A2d required to appeal zoning commission's rejection of 656, 17 QZMApp. 171, [main volume] certification Plot to board of zoning appeals,where gular and alternate members of zoning board grained in part b62 A2d 1217; 209 Conn 880, the board was only empowered to review the deci- peals; terms of office and disqualification,see ; reversed on other slon of the commission and not to participate in the Use Law and Practice, Vol. 9, Fuller, § 8.1 570. T ' •' {grounds 668 A2d�'212 Conn' Commission's decision making. Port Clinton Asso- gulating`without adopting regulations,'Rinka- € Plaintiffs who:were shall dates V.-Board'of Selectmen of Town of'Clinton an agency authority,see Land Use Law and certificate third egg issuance of zon- (1991) 587 AZd 126, 217 Corm. 588, certiorari ice,VOL 9,Fuller,§ 222 party could not be deemed denied 112 S.CL 64,502 U.S.814, 116 L.Ed2d 39. to have failed to exhaust administrative appellate , view by inland wetlands agency of certain process where plaintiffs had no actual or construe- „�2ere fact that:property owner, who brought g and planning applications, see Eand Use tive notice of issuance of zoning'certificate and action against city based on city's alleged illegal 3ud Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 11.6: '*.•:: A9 there was no provision in zoning regulations.for demolition of portion of his building causing a loss view by zoning board of appeals of decisions - such notice. ' Loulis v. Parrott (1997).695 A2d of nonconforming use zoning variance and dam- 1040,241 Conn.180. ning enforcement authority, see*Land Use ages, failed to apply for another nonconforming ind Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 8.6. Exhaustion of administrative.remedies doctrine use.variance prior to bringing suit did not require luence of issues decided in administrative a ' does not preclude one party from bringing civil dismissal of suit for failure to exhaust administra- - action to challenge alleged zoning violation by an- live remedies; obtaining another nonconforming see Land Use Law and Practice, VbL 91 other.�y wl,� that other party would be re- use variance would not have 's ;§ 34.2. :.: ... .,_, : affected owner dam- quered to undertake, but has not yet undertaken, age claims, and owner did not seek restoration of a plans, direct appeal to superior court, see administrative proceedings concerming conduct un- nonconforming use variance but rather sought only Use Law and Practice, VOL 9, Fuller, derlying alleged violation. .LouNs V.Parrott(1997) damages. Costanzo v.Town of Hamden(1989)557 1€ 695 A.2d 1040,241 Conn.180. A.2d 1279,18 Co nn App.264. ..... i 1 _.. 8-7 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING. Note 6 & Time to take appeal 219 Conn. 352, on remand 610 A.2d 713,28 Conn. 14. — Evidence Period during which aggrieved party could ap. APp.256• Trial coon did not abuse its discretion peal from decision of zoning board began to run :E of denial of site plan application when it r from date that board issued its second permit 11. Hearings—In general admit published legal notice of decision covering erection of radio tower on adjacent prop- Zoning board of appeals is not subject to auto previous variance application for same s erty, rather than date of first approval, even matic approval doctrine based on its failure to hold other applicant; language of notice was though it was claimed that changes between fast public hearing within 66-day statutory time limit; to substance of decision, since notice wz and second approvals were minor, landowner Overruling Vartuli v Sotire, 192 Conn. 358, 472 quired by statute to include reasons fc seeking approvals had admitted that plan given A.2d 336; Carr v..Woolwich,.7 ConnApp.684,.510 authorities' decision or specific condition initial approval had not complied with zoning code. A.2d 1358. Leo Fedus and Sons Conti,Co.,Inc v. rated in decision. R & R Pool & Hom Kcepke v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town and Borough of Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of I Coventry (1994) 645 A.2d 983, 230 Conn. 452. Colchester (1993) 623 A2d 1007, 225 Conn. ¢32 (1996) 684 A.2d 1207, 43 ConnApp. 5& Where zoning board of appeals had not adopted When a zoning commission hears witnesses and wand• arguments for and against a subdivision, then Evidence in proceeding for rule regarding time in which to appeal decision of �,; P special zoning enforcement officer, 'mandatory 30-day makes a decision that binds the parties,that"hear. permit to construct 180 units of multifar statutory limit for appeals applied, and failure to ing' is more than a mere "opportunity to be ing in industrial zone supported conch appeal within that time deprived board of appeals heard"; it is a formal proceeding in which definite development would alter essentially a of jurisdiction. Bosley v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals of issues of fact in law are dedded,,requiring.xhat.the and industrial character of neighborhood City of New Haven(1993)622 A.2d 1020,30 Conn. commission conducting the hearing first have juria. ported denial of:application, even thou App.797. diction over the subject matter. Koskoff v. Plan- ' stated that property was in prime area Period of 30 days within which appeal had to be '�and 111446, 27mC)nonnA p�certification �t would not be in best interestment and that of taken to zoning board of appeals began to run at granted in p� 608 A.2d 695, 222 Conn. 912. _ though board referred to desires of indr time of issuance of certificate of zoning compliance $., . ,.._ ,,..r:.. :,u,r and zo: by zoning enforcement officer following grant of 12: .Notice,in general "�•'r .ter'":9.^.u7 velopment commission, planning special exception by zoning board of appeals per- '-Mandowner's volun 1 mission,and mayor to preserve smaller tary,paitiapatton.ii .zoning panels ia.ho of recruiting new indu_ witting establishment of convalescent home on board hearing neither cured juris&donai`defect of denc premises. Bosley v.Zoning Bd.-of Appeals of City insufficient notice of public hearing,'nor eatopped Indicated _that there was prepond of New Haven(1993)622 A.2d 1020,30 Conn.App. him from raising defeet-after'advbne board-ded- :�n'' i'`:� s:�. ":' '':`_• bion. Kcepke v. Zoning Bd.of.Appeib'of Coven- t•:8-7a. Evidence at hearings t Remand to Appellate Court was necessary to try(1992)610 A.2d 1301,228 Conn.171,olfremand iii L: ,`. : _:.. determine whether lateness of abutting landown- 620 A.2d 811,30 ConnApp.395..,rsr^ ..1 suJc.�: : The zoning commission, planning -Ws appeal deprived zoning board of subject mat- : is notice of ap shall call in a.comi provided legally inau>I�cieaf'acf :; ter jurisdiction to consider-merits of appeal from vice to other proPerty'owneis about abutting-land'- the..evidence to be pecorded.by. a approval of zoning permit. Kcepke v.Zoning Bd. owner's challenge to validity'of]sndownei`s zoning commission or board in which the rig of Appeals of Coventry(1992) 610 A.2d 1301, 223 permit and,thus,zoning board was without"subject Conn. 171,on remand 620 A2d 811,30 ConnApp. matter jurisdiction; published notice iraTed toidea- (1�.P•A_90-286,.§ 6,,efi:June 8,1990.' 895. ,,•,, -�,.: q, ,. ., f1Py"subject matter of so on ofperty 'Histor :::k_ .: :.: at issue, owner of ' p�y,.•.m; proposed use.of _ ? ie��; ,:' ire:, ,ra r' 7. Failure to seek appeal property. '•'Kcepke-v: Zoning•`B& o1 als of ,r,..n, ,» Time limitations imposed by statute governing Coventry(1992)610 A.2d-1801,.223 on1'117'1:'.oh Amendments appeals to zoning board of appeals are jurisdiction- remand 620 A.2d 811;80 Conn App:$9b: ' io 1990 Amendment. 1990,PA 90-286. A and failure to initiate proceedings within this Zoning board of appeals gave,adequate.potice to ed reference to planning commissions anctime lintited . review. Bosley v.Zoning statute results of Appeals of City ht to abutting properly..Vie' .4-,Pu�e,�eat�-on and Zoning commissions. L ,: New Haven (1993) 622 A.2d 1020, 30 ConnApp. application for variance from-minimum.lot size and front ySrd Setback 1egUi2elnent8,`.eY@71 if E utting -'I :;:r:• 'r ....:,{ �,�;.: ,t n: :r 797. L , owner was seasonal resident - • .. , -•. -- .and;-thus,.abutting � ,•u:�: ..,,.. ..: .,, .,.. ,•. � • , 10. Board review of prior determinations owner was not entitled to bring in evidence from Connecticut Practice . outside record on appeal to superior court-.board -r ;Zoning board cannot reverse its previous des- }Documents to be filed, defense of Ian fully complied with statutory notice requiremen . " it mailed letter to abutting owner that he received Fuller § 28.7, eion unless facts and dreumstancea that actuated � peal, see Land Use Law and P:actic decision are shown to have so changed as to vitiate before hearing, and whatever inadequacy`may ' Necesai for court reporter at land u or materially to affect reason that produced and have existed i notice,abuttin owner attended � � supported decision. Sharp v: Zoning Bd. of Ap- g tion hearing,see Land Use Law and Pr peals of Town of Easton (1996) 684 A.2d 713, 43 public hearing and addressed'board. 'Eagan'v. 9,Fuller,§ 16.6. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Old Lyme 1990)_588 ConnApp.512. A2d 811,20 ConnApp.561. "'( i Preparation of return of record; tm ;Assuming zoning'enforcement officer revoked ;!ir i ^__i;. zt': public.hearing, defense of land use aF Land Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,.Full, -- P zoning permit in good faith discharge of his office, I& ublication of notice : zoning board of appeals, hearing de novo appeal •"Insufficient notice of public hearing of zoning from such revocation, would*wield that same au- board did not result in approval of challenged thority to remake the decision which,in its opinion, zoning permit nor approval of-challenged appeal L .:•z:r• 11` Noncompliance ought to have been made: Caserta v.Zoning Bd. that invalidated permit.- Kcepke v:Zoning Bd.-of T •„• -,•- of Appeals of City of Milford(1990)580 A.2d 528, Appeals of Coventry (1992) 610 A.2d 1801, M Wagner v. `Zoning Bd. of Appeals o: 23 ConnApp.232,certification granted in pan 582 Conn. 171,on remand 620 A.2d 811,30 ConnApp.. Canton (1965) [main volume] 216 A2d A.2d 203, 216 Conn. 826, reversed 593 A.2d 118, 395. �n .;,mQ ii,..lkf', ;_;,.;��, Conn.713. 56 i • :NG, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. T ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. § 8-7a Note 1 n. 352, on remand 610 A.2d 713, 28 Conn. 14. — Evidence commercial and industrial uses and that there ;. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in appeal were lumber yard and concrete plant directly of denial of site plan application when it refused to across from parcel. Oakwood Development Corp. arings—In general admit published legal notice of decision granting v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Torrington g board of appeals is not subject to auto- previous variance application for same site to an- (1990)567 A.2d 1260. 20 ConnApp. 458, certifies- iproval doctrine based on its failure to hold other applicant; language of notice was irrelevant tion denied 576 A2d 53&215 Conn.808. earing within 65-day statutory time limit; to substance of decision, since notice was not re- :ig Vartuli v. Sotire, 192 Conn. 353, 472 quired by statute to include reasons for zoning 16. — Voting by board i; Carr v. Woolwich,7 ConnApp.684,510 authorities' decision or specific conditions incorpo- Four votes of members of town zoning board of S. Leo Fedus and Sons Const.Co.,Inc.v. rated in decision. R & R Pool & Home, Inc. v. appeals were necessary to approve application to Bd. of Appeals of Town and Borough of Zoning Bd- of Appeals of the Town of Ridgefield modify setback variance by removing attached con- ar (1993) 623 A.2d 1007, 225 Conn 432. (1996) 684 A.2d 1207, 43 Conn.App. 563, on re-. ditions limiting building of any structure on prop- a zoning commission hears witnesses and' mod• erty to seasonal cottage of not more than 640 tts for and against a subdivision, then ' Evidence in proceeding for social .exception square feet. .Fleet Nat. Bank v. Zoning Bd. of decision that binds the parties,that"hear- " . permit to construct 180 units of multifamily hoes- Appeals of.Town of Winchester(1999) 734 A.2d more than a mere 'opportunity to bi .. ing in industrial zone supported conclusion that )592,:54 ConnApp. 135, certification denied 738 it is a formal proceeding in which definite �, development would alter essentially._commercial A.2d.656,250 Conn.930. 'fact in law are decided that thesup- ion requiring � and industrial character of neighborhood'and �.,.� Publication of board decisions 'c conducting the hearing first have juris- ported denial of application, .even though board ! ver the subject matter. Koskoff v. Plan- stated that property was in prime area for Indus- Once town"zoning board of appeals published Zoning Com'n of Town of Haddam(1992) trial development and that multifamily develop- notice of its decision in landowner's appeal from d 1146, 27 ConnApp. 443, certification ment would not be in best interest of city,and even, :pease and desist order,decision was final and could _ in part 608 A.2d 695, 222 Conn. 912. If though board referred to desires of industrial de- not be opened; therefore, board's reopening of r velo went commission,•planning and-zoning -Notice,in general '-�- ' p an►g �- ''decision following publication was invalid and pub- ; , mission,and.mayor to preserve smaller.industrial liahed decision remained in effect. Sharp v,.Zon- wner's voluntary participation in zoning parcels in,hopes of recruiting new industry- evi._ ing Bd. of Appeals of Town of Easton_ (1996) 684 wring neither cured jurisdictional defect Of dense indicated that there was {n+eepogderance of, A.2d TI3,43 Conn.Ap}�.512. :nt notice of public hearing, nor estoppel se raising defect after adverse board lea- 0 aepke v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Coven- ` §-8-7a. :Evidence at hearings to.be.taken by stenographer or recorded 610 A.2d 1301,223 Conn 171,on remand !t.t r• , , 811,30 ConnApp.395. c ;::, _:: The zoning commission, planmiig commission,plaiiiuiig anc�zoning commission and zoning hed notice provided legally insufficient aa= board.of appeals.shall call in a competent stenographer to take.the evidence, or shall cause Cher property owners about abutting land- the .evidence ,to recorded.,by g:sound-recoxding�device,.in. each hearing before such ziallenge to validity of landowner's zoning commission or board in which the right of appeal lies to the superior court. . s,�.r;;:, - .,,,•,,•, rsd,thus,zoning board was without subject (1990 P.A.90-286 § 6 e>L June 8 1990 +, r irisdiction; published notice failed to idea- (1990,- �. ," .�Q: let matter of appeal, location of property .:�? stit•:C79:) -o s"iiI IC,11.1. rye ::a;f •i.,G i R� n •Y.,1 fit- R.` 7: owner of property, or proposed use of _Statutory'Notes Koepke v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of �•, '• , ?b u•; .�s�,:.. , :,� au.x rT �rro �(1992) 610 A.2d 1301, 223 Conn.`171"oil Amendmeni`sirt•; �.t •'. ` .,Y.: �r rt�1.� �, iur �i.,. 4� o :~ , iE0 A.2d 811,30 ConnApp.396. Ili'� �0 1990 Amendment. 1990 PA 90-286 6,add- t ,,,,board of appeals gave adequate notice t9 ed reference to planning commissions and planning J ruu�,r... property owner of public hearings on and zoning commissions. ,w; ;r, •d;� •ru in for variance from minimum lot size and ::r .... . ` ..:r.?:yr7:S i; 9 A setback requirements, even if abutting c L i:;� ..a _ ,r '�''�:Library References as seasonal resident and, thus, abutting �•: rLi ) r8 "( t ,;,'Ca'):.' ej as not entitled to bring in evidence from Connecticut Practice r .; ,Reconstruction-of agency record on land use,see t eecord Dn appeal to superior.court;..board Documents to be filed, defense of land use ap- --Land.Use Law.and Practice, Vol. 9, Fuller, !plied with statutory notice requirements, see Land Use Law and Practice; Vol. 9. t letter to abuttingowner that he received Pam• - . . §•2720. Fuller,§ 28.7. .... . , ,. . ..... :•.-;�, rearing, and, whatever inadequacy- may . Necessity for court reporter at land use applies- _Statutory requirements for hearings on land use sted in notice, abutting owner attended lion hearing,see Land Use Law and Practice,Vol. applications,see Land Use Law and Practice,Vol. i iiig and addressed board. Eagan'v. _ 9,Fuller,§ 16.6. '9;Fuller;§ 202. IL of Appeals of Old Lyme (1990) 568 Preparation of return of record; transcript of ,.ZC Conn-App.661. public hearing, defense of land use appeal, see t -Publication o - , ,.._ _ Land Use Law and Practice,Vol;9,.Fuller,§ 28.6�_ f notice dent notice of public hearing of zoning I c tt irVotes of Decisions d not result in approval of challenged - _..... ermit nor approval of challenged appeal t ._.es , t r• u.. r i •,. , .rr 1 Noncompliance lidated permit. Koepke v.Zoning Bd. of ,.t.. , : - of Coventry (1992) 610 A.2d 1301, 223 Wagner v' �Loning Bd. of Appeals ofTown of a ;:rr:- 1,on remand 620 A.2d 811,30 ConnApp. Canton (1965) (main volume] 216 AM 182, 153 " Conn.713. 57 § 8-7b ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ` ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ' F. 8-7b. Notice to contiguous municipalities of variance applications - Historic Library References Amendments Connecticut Practice Zoning board of appeals; variances and appeals 1993 Amendment. 1993, PA 93-385, Coastal site plan applications, see Land Use from zoning enforcement officer, notice require- subset. ( substituted requirement under regulationns for any building for requiremer. Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 6.5. menta for public hearings,a"Land Use Law and zoning regulations for a proposed building. Date of public hearing, see Land Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,.§ M. Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 18.3. ::, : Li Notice requirements for land use application hearing, see Land Use Law and Practice, VOL 91 -ir Connecticut Practice ;. . Fuller,§ 16.5. _ Agency requirements for Ming comple use application, see Land Use Law and 1' 84c. Disclosure of beneficiaries of real property held in trust Vol.9,Fuller,§ 15.12. Lib References_ l ;..t ' �� Applicant's remedies for agency dela, r^ Land Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller. Connecticut Practice :Special notice requirements for.public hearings, Claims of incomplete applications,-see-La Preliminary land use applications,see Land Use see Land Use Law and Practice_,VOL 5, Fuller, Law and Practice,Vol.9,Faller,§ 19.3 Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 15.8. § 17.10. p-Closing the public hearing on land use c do•��+i' •M:z,. n, am Land Use Law and Practice. — 8-7d. Hearings and decisions. Time limits. Day of receipt• •• llcut-tcVrr•:rrm Fuller,§ 20.15. L •':Coastal•site plan applications,'see La, (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, in all matters wherein a formal I;aw and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 6.5. petition, application, request or appeal must be submitted to a zoning commission; planning and zoning commission or zoning board of appeals under this chapter and w-.hearing'ill -Mate of public hearing,see Land Use L. required on such petition,application,request or appeal,such hearing shalYciommerie"6 within ' mice,Vol..9,Fuller,§ 18.3. .J sixty-five days after receipt of such petition, application, request or appeal and shall be t �.4ailure of agency to act on zone changes, completed within thirty-five:days after-such hearing commences.-iAll-decisions on such permits and variances, see Land Use I- matters shall be rendered within sixty-five days after completion of such hearing. The Practice,Vol 9,Fuller,§ 23.3.. petitioner or applicant may consent to.one or more extensions of any period specified in this n'Federal rights in land use cases, see La7 `subsection, provided the total,extension of any such period=shall not be for~longer than-the Law and Practice,Vol.9,:Fuller,§�13 4. original period as specified in this subsection, or may withdraw such petition;'' ...— tioie Options available with affordable housinj request or appeal. "'} u: -'!1;; .uiS:r. .: ::!!:tJi C• li5!'S_:;f__:1 .;:+i.11�ii)�(F. ;;(y[ciS[tlIi�J cations, Bee Land.Uae Law and'Practice, :.. .:. Fuller,§ 51.4. (b) Whenever the approval of a site plan is the only requirement to be mef or remauung• :al?rocedures for"eland use applications,in€ be met under the zoning regulations for any building, use.or structure, a decision on an -see Land_Use Law and Practice, Vol. 9, application for approval of such site plan shall be rendered within sixty-five days after receipt 1.2.3. of such site plan. The applicant may consent to one or more extensions of such od provided the total period of any such extension or extensions shall not exceedWo der ` "Receipt of application,.scheduling and sixty-five-day periods,or may withdraw such plan. �� *`"'- -�. t:;; 1''` mime t t public hearing, see Land Use Law and P: E wli[JiSIn Vd.9,Fuller,§.182...1F.:.t•,[}..':5:,; ..:7C•=�i'�tt;3aQlu`l�.^.•YTO*2_a� _ �•1 r.:y:'; IA.-.. ._ (c) For purposes of subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the day of receipt of.a:petition, :'Review by inland wetlands agency of application,request or appeal shall be the day of the next regularly scheduled meeting of such tong and planning applications, see Lar. commission or board, immediately following the day of submission to such board or commis- Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 11.6. Sion or its agent of such petition,application,request or appeal or thirty-five days after such " .submission,whichever is sooner. If the commission or board does not maintain'an office with r.a• s:a, r tt+,Nt regular office hours, the office of the clerk of the municipality shall act as the agent•of such commission or board for the receipt of any petition,application,request or appeal. 'y' =� ', Constitutionality !i "F1't Executive session 1.5 -(d) The provisions of'subsection(a)of this section shall not apply to any'action initiated by Ex parte determination 5.6 any zoning or planning and zoning commission regarding adoption or change of:any,zoning Law governing - ;,i :!•...., regulation or boundary. 1.0; aL:, - .. `?• ..Y�.:.! . :. ':•. . ... --- (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, if an application-i nrvolves_an activity regulated pursuant to sections 22a,36 to 22a4.5, inclusive, and the time for a dethsion bi a Constitutionality zoning commission or planning and zoning commission established pursuant to this section _qStatute which did not expressly provide fc would elapse prior to the thirty-fifth day after a"decision by the inland wetlands agency, the oi' appeal from automatic.approval_of sit time period for a decision shall be extended to thirty-five days after the decision.of.such applications by municipal board due to fai: agency. The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to apply to any extension ° act within statutory time constraints was consented to by an applicant or petitioner. "' : • ..- ••-'•`' ,: i.+. °. constitutional. October Twenty-Four,Inc . king and Zoning Com'n of Town of Plainville (19939 PA 93�86,§ 2; 1999,PA 99-21,§ 1.) :.'.�r,t': 646 AM 926,35 Conn.App.599. -G, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC, ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING,'ETC. § 8-7d = Note 1.5 'ariance applications Historical and Statutory Notes Amendments 1999 Amendment. 1999, P.A. 99-21, § 1, 1993 Amendment. 1993, P.A. 93-M, §.2, in amended the section by substituting "thirty-five" board of appeals; variances and appeals ng enforcement officer, notice subset. (b), substituted requirement under zoning for"thirty"in subsec.(a). require. .,. regulations for any building for requirement under public hearings,see Land Use Law and zoning regulations for a proposed building. 7oi.9,Fuller,§ 17.5. _ , Library References P Connecticut Practice 'Review of content of site plans, see Land Use e ` - Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 6.3. Agency requirements for filing complete land }►. `' use application, see Land Use Law and"Practice, Scheduling-and holding public hearing,see Land rty held in trust Vol.9,Fuller,§ 15.12. Uae Law and_Practice, Vol. 9, Fuller, § 18.1. et Y � Applicant's remedies for agency delays, see Site plan 'rp �Lof special permit application, Land Use Law and Practice,Vol. ,m 9iller,$ 19.6. h . 1, Claims - see Land Use Law and Practice, Vol, 9 Fuller, notice requirements-for public hearings of incomplete applications,see'Land Use .. Use Law and Practice, VoL 9, Fuller, ' Law and Practice,VoL.9,Hiller,1 19.3,. .,.:,, •a _ .. , Site direct peal to superior court, see ;:.ua . . Closing the public hearing on land use applies- Land. II s, and Practice,Vol. .9, Fuller, ,m tion, see Land Use Law and Practice Vol.. 9 ✓;.48.14. >" )ay of receipt - s ._ Fuller,§ 20.15. ;Mutes providing for inferred approval of land Coastal*site plan applications,'see-'Land' Use use applications; .subdivisions and site plans, see n, in all matters wherein a formal Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 9.6. Land Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 232. d to a zoning commission, planning ' +e Date of public hearing,see Land Use Law and '­�limits-for,agency action on land use appli- ier this chapter and a hearing"i8 Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 18.3. cations, am Land Use•Law and Practice, Vol. 9, ;uch hearing shall commence within u: cc:a,:: ;., i, request or appeal and shall be Failure of agency to act on zone changes,'speciai Fuller,§'28.1: ,.- : e p permits and variances, see'Land Land Use Law and ` Time limits•for•agency•to decide land use applI- �mmences. All decisions on such -ehtion atte ;public hearing;see Land Use Law and completion of such hearing. Practice,Vol.9,miller,ai 23 3., _, .,- ,,:-;n,;?s p g. The - Practice, FnIler,'§•21.1.- :';� .�_. Mans of any period specified in this Federal rights in land use cases, see Land Use 'siyme'limits on'17ubHc hearings,'see•Lana Use xl-shall not be for longer than the Law and Practice,VoL 9,:Fuller,§ 43 4. ,; -n. 'rAw and Pracd&,VoL 9;Fuller,§-20.4. "'�".10— •ithdraw such petition, application, Options available with affordable housing.app1I- . •Tlmmg of IDing'of lauif`use application,jsee Land cations, see Land Use Law and'Practice, Vol. 9, Fuller,§ 61.4. - Use Law and'Practice, Vol." 9, Fuller, 9 15.11. t' "'r 7 y;�^ �' Waiver of.tuna limits on agency-Jactton on land tirement to be met or remaining t0 Aocedures for land use applications,in general, use applications; 'eitensiona by applicant,see'Land 'Be or structure, a decision on an see Land Use.Law and Practice, VoL 9, Fuller, Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,123.5. within sixty-five days after receipt - 122. N'- .t;•1A ::,,c,,: ;K,Writs of mandamus on land.use issues,see Land more extensions of such period, Receipt of application,,scheduling and.:holding -Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 39.1 et seq. lions shall not exceed"two further public hearing, see Land Use Law and Practice, Zoning commission; site plans; notice require- - Vol.9,Fuller,§,182 r.... �. men t8 for public hearings,see Land Use Law and -z, the day of receipt of.a petition, Review by inland wetlands agency oUcertain P'actice,.Vol.9,Fuller,§-17.4.":..�.;�, ., .)r.: �s i egularly scheduled meeting of such zoning and planning applications, see Land Use --.-Zoning permits, see Land Use Law and Prac- tice,and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 11.6. tire,Vol.9,:Fuller,§6.6. emission to such board or commis- - Veal or thirty-five days after such rd does not maintain an office with W." . - _„ ,. :,;Notes of Decisions"': ality shall act as the agent of such p Jon,request or appeal. y Constitutionality Y► �.,, l6 Law governing , Executive session 1.5 v - Failure;of city zoning commission to act within tot apply to any action initiated by Ex parte determination 5.6 " J 66 days of receipt of site plea application where no adoption or change of any zoning Law governing public hearing was mandated by city zoning regu- ' letion triggered automatic approval of site plan m application involves an ictnnty J J application under zoning statute. October Twenty- and the time for a decision by a �. Constitutionality �• . Four,Ine-.v.Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town tablished pursuant to this section 'I of Plainville(1994),646 A.2d 926,35 Conn-App.599. p Statute which did not expressly provide for right �,.:., >y the inland wetlands agency,the of appeal. from automatic.approval of site plan L& Executive sessio - n , e days after the decision of such r, applications by municipal board due to failure to &- --Zoning boards are entitled to receive technical nstrued to apply to any extension ..i act within statutory time constraints was not un. -assistance when deciding on matters beyond their constitutionaL October Twenty-Four,Inc v:.Plan- expertise and that information may be received , ning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Plainville(1994) and discussed in:executive session. Carlson v. 646 A2d 926,35 Conn.App.599. Fisher (1989) 558-A2d 1029, 18 Conn.App. 488. 59 i §.8-7d ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. , ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, Note 2 2. Timeliness of Greenwich (1990) 573 A2d 768, 21 ConnApp. 6. Waiver Even if letter in which landowneFs agent agreed 421• Trial court did not err in affirming appr to 65-day extension for town planning and zoning plan on the basis of automatic approval b� commission to take action on site plan application 3. Site plan approval tion of law, notwithstanding is app ava co: for convenience store to coincide with time line for Carr v. Woolwich (1986)610 A2d 1358, 7 Conn a that other requirements necessary to comp: special permit application for gasoline service sta- App. 684, certification denied 513 A.2d 698, (main : zoning process had not been met,where th tion on adjoining property could be interpreted as volume]201 Conn.804. extending time for decision on site plan application record developed by the zoning commis: to date commission acted on special permit, there 5. Hearing available for the trial court to review and 1 applicant and the zoning commission indica� would be automatic approval of site plan, where Under zoning statute, time constraint for ren- the record allowed that no additional requu hearing as to special permit was void and nullity dering of decisions of review of site plan applies- existed. October Twenty-Four, Inc. v. F due to defective notices. Center Shops of East :a � Granby, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of bons is determined by whether public hearing.is and Zoning Com'n of Town of Plainville(1. required for review of particular applications; local A.2d 926,35 ConnApp.599. Town of East Granby (1999) 727 A2d 807, 52 zoning regulations determine if public hearing is ConnApp. 763, certification granted in part 733 required. October Twenty-Four, Inc. v. Planning ,,Action that have been deemed to r, A2d 223,249 Conn.906. - and Zoning Com'n of Town of Plainville(1994)646 �'m'of right to automatic approval due tc -Letter in which landowners nt to 65- A•2d 926,35 Co of zoning commission to act within time con age mod. nn ApP.599. .,_; li';.11',,. �ti _ for rendering decision generally include day extension for town planning and zoning com- - � = • _�. g 8'an Y Where city zoning regulation did not'expressly where applicant either granted mission to take action on site plan application for PP� �P�Y convenience store to coincide with time line for require Public hearing prior to adoption of zoning lions of time or voluntarily withdrew its special permit application for gasoline service sta- application,provision of zoning.statute establishing tion; these applicants could not later cla: 'tion on adjoiningproperty did not extend time for time constraints for rendering of decision where no their applications had been approved by of P Pm�' public hearing is required applied even_though sty of law. October Twenty-Four, Inc. v. P decision on site plan application beyond statutory commission decided to hold discretionary, - 65-day period, to date that commission acted on special hen8; :.- special permit,and thus,landowner was entitled to fact that commission decided to hold discretionary automatic approval of site plan application for com- hearing did not transform permissive regulation 8-7e. Notice:to adjoining•mun into mandatory one. October Twenty-Four;Inc.#.. .,;.The zoning board of appeals of an. mission's failure to comply with statutory time Planning and Zoning Com'n of•Town:of_Plainville constraints. Center Shops of East Granby, Inc.v. ;nunicipality of the pendency of any ap• (1994)6462d 926 Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of East Gran- A ,36 C� onn.App..b99 ..,,3.3-:r.�lr: in.which: (1) Any portion of the pro: by(1999)727 A2d 807,52 ConnApp.763,certifica- Determinative issue in evaluating which siatuto- ' appeals is"-within five hundred feet c tion granted in part 733 A2d 223,249 Conn. 906. ry provision applies in determining time con- significant portion of the traffic to the c Landowners were entitled to automatic approval. atraints for rendering action on.zonittg application adjoining municipality to enter or exit- :pf.special permit application for gasoline service is whether local zoning regulations require public station as result of town planning and zoning com- hearing before approval.of application;..Ifine_at .o,r seweerage system within the adjoinir flrom the project on the site mission's failure to comply with statutory notice which discretionary hearing is held'is of no cone- oP se And hearing requirements. Center Shops of East quence in contemplating time for decision. 0cto- site*till impact streets or other ti'lunici. 'Granby, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of be Twenty-Four, Inc.-'Vl Planning arid'Zoning . ty. Such notice shall be made by eerti: Town of East Granby (1999) 727 A.2d 807, 52 Com'n of Town of Plainville(1994)646 A2d 926,.85 within seven days of the date of recei ConnApp. 763, certification granted-itt part 733, ConnApp.599. ?•: conducted on any application or regm A2d 223,249 Conn.906. r.:::,:: :: Zoning regulation and statute on appeal-to neon- Aotice required under this section. Si ~"Zoning statute sets mandatory time limits'on ing board of appeals clearly requireAha_t'right tA- #ve,.appear and be heard at any hearir. `review of site plan application. October Twenty- appeal embrace right to meaningful appeal in (i989,P.A.89-175,?f 4,eff.June 1,1989.) Four, Inc.v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town which public hearing is held. Leo Fedus and Son . .c, . of Plainville(1994)646 A2d 926,35 ConnApp.599. :Const. CO., Inc.v. Zoning Bd.of Appeals.of Town u`!i -$istoric: Statute governing time constraints on rendering and Borough of Colchester (1993) 623 A2d 1007, i t of decisions on zoning applications applies only 225 Conn.432. Amendments _:- where public hearing is required; statute makes 7989 Amendment..,1989,PA 89-175, § 5.5. Ex parte determination stituted nC reference to situation where public hearings �' - � ``' • �� provision requiring notice by c• are not required but are held at discretion of Subdivision opponents were deprived of due pro- zoning commission. October Twenty-Four. Inc.v. cess when town zoning and planning commission ,i -•re ,,? :, - Li .Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Plainville received detailed water drainage proposal'f om '` - n Connecticut Practice (1994)646 A.2d 926,35 ConnApp.599. • applicants after public hearing and voted to ap- ' En of superior court's judgment triggered Prove plan during executive session aver receiving Inland wetlands en Entry P ] Bm ggered agency-, regulated actin naming of 65-day period under statute governing favorable recommendation from town engineer on mite, notice requirements for public hearir approval of site plan under zoning regulation,and, basis of that report butwithout offering opponents Land Use Law and Practice,VOL 9,Fuller, thus, planning and zoning commission's failure to any opportunity to offer rebuttal Carlson v._Fish- 7'Notice requirements; failure to give not render decision on property owner's application for er(1989)558 A2d 1029,18 ConnApp.488.' Land Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller, site plan within 65 days of date of superior court's 'Resubdivision opponents' due process 'rights l remand order resulted in approval of application were not violated when zoning and planning com- by operation of law despite commission's conten- mission received ex parts applicants'"open space �:B--S• Appeal from board to cou tion that 65-day period should be enlarged by 20 waiver request and granted it in executive session • days in which commission could have petitioned where opponents were given opportunity1000 to.rebut �::-, section effective until J appellate court to certify case for further review. that information. Carlson v. Fisher (1989).558 W., 21)00, seea§.BBB,post, ,•, :r. Marandino v.Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town A2d 1029,18 ConnApp.488......'ciE aP.i_ �k :.(S) As used in this section: 60 PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. § 8--8 (1990) 573 A.2d 768, 21 ConnApp. y 6. Waiver and Zoning Com'n of Town of Plainville(1994)646 41 Trial court did not err in affirming approval site A.2d 926,35 Conn App.699. pproval plan on the basis of automatic approval by opera- Right to automatic approval of zoning applies- a tion of law, notwithstanding opponent's contention lion due to failure of zoning commission to act on olwich (1986)510 A.2d 1358, 7 Conn. that other requirements necessary to completion of application within applicable time constraints was tification denied 513 A.2d 698, [main zoning process had not been met,where the entire not waived by_attending meetings of zoning com- :onn.804. r record developed by the zoning commission was mission where applicants never consented to exten- sion of time, and failure to adhere to time con- available for the trial court to review and both the applicant and the zoning commission indicated that a due solely o actions commission; ng statute, time constraint for ren- the record showed that no additional requirements applicant did id not intentionally relinquish right to . „- automatic approval. October Twenty-Four,Inc.v. isions of review of site plan applies- existed. October Twenty-Four, Inc. v. Planning. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Plainville mined by whether public hearing is _r, and Zoning Com'n of Town of Plainville(1994)646 (1994) A.2dConn ConnApp.599. eview of particular applications; local � A.2d 926,35 ConnApp.599. :::_4, •- n.; I .Applicants.for special permit.to excavate gravel tions determine if public hearing is t Actions that have been deemed t result m* tuber Twenty-Four, Inc. v. Planning V .,ofrom their premises waived any right they had to waiver of right to automatic approval due to failure automatic approval-of their application after cer- om n of Town of Plainville(1994)646 of zoning commission to act within time constraints 'tain time by requesting,_ for their own benefit, :onnApp.599. for rendering decision generally include curses ` 'nnnierous written extensions of time for deciding zoning regulation did not expressly where applicant either expressly granted'eaten- application, and it would be neither reasonable, hearing prior to adoption of zoning sions of time or voluntarily withdrew its applies- "rational, nor-fair•to require automatic approval vvision of zoning statute establishing tion; these applicants could not later claim that-, under those circumstances. Massimo v. Planning its for rendering of decision where no their applications had been approved by operation Com'n of Town of Naugatuck(1989)564 A.2d 1075, is required applied even though city of law. October Twenty-Four, Inc. v. Planning 41.Conn.Supp.196. �cided to hold discretionary hearing nission decided to hold discretionary § 8-7e. Notice to a oining munici{alitiea of tot transform permissive regulation, dJ P •applications Or requests y one. October Twenty-Four,Inc.�.- The zoning board of appeals of any municipality shall notify the clerk of any adjoining Zoning Com'n of Town of Plainville municipality of the pendency of any application or request concerning any project on any site d 926,35 Co 599. DPP -`fir. _ in which: (1) Any portion of the property affected by a decision of such zoning board.of ve issue in evaluating which statuto- appeals is within five hundred feet of the boundary of the adjoining•�municipality; (2) a applies in determining time con- significant portion of the traffic to the completed project on the site will use streets within the ndering action on zoning applicationI adjoining municipality to enter ofexit the site;-(3)asignificant portion of the sewer or water :al zoning regulations require public drains a from the ro ect on the site*M flow throu and`si cant] ini act the drainagie approval of application; time atg P Y Punary hearing is held is of no copse- or sewerage'system within the adjoining municipality; or(4)'water runoff from the improved templating time for decision. Octo- :6�" site will impact streets or other munieipal'or private property within the adjoining municipali- 'our, Inc. yr Planning and-Zoning'y ty. Such notice shall be made by certified nisi],return receipt requested,and shall be mailed a of Plainville(1994)646 A.2d 926,35 within seven days of the date of receipt of the application or request:'No hearing may be conducted on any application or request unless the adjoining municipality has received the notice required under this section.. Such oinin munici t may, through a re resenta- dation and statute on appeal to ion- e9 .adl g. Pali Y, Y P . rppeais clearly require that right to tive,appear and be heard at any hearing.on.any such application.or,request. :ce right to meaningful appeal in (1989,P.A.89-176,§ 4,eff.June 1,1989.) y:=: =' `! c '- "�� ;-`u1 ' '-` .1 earing is held. Leo Fedus and Sons a v.ZoningBd. Appeals ' of APP of Town a ;Historical and Statutory Notes- of Colchester (1993) 623 A.2d 1007, Y - 1v -t n•,:�lr, ;; Y Ainendmenta ;mail,return receipt re4uested for provision requir- :; 1989 Amendment. 1989, PA 89-175, § 4,sub- 'ing notice by registered mail. determination stituted provision requiring notice by certified j opponents were deprived of due pro- m zoning and planning commission " - Library References. :; •., c :led water drainage proposal from ` ; r-;: . „ ar public hearing and voted to ap- a Connecticut Practice Special permits, notice'requirements for public ing executive session after receiving Inland wetlands agency; regulated activityper- ham'see Land Use Law and Practice,Vol 9, P Fuller,§ 17.3. rnmendation from town engineer on wits, notice requirements for public hearings, ace eport but without offering opponents I Land Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller;§ 17.9. . ,. Zoning board of appeals; variances and appeals Y to offer rebuttal. Carlson v.Fish- Tl�`` • • „_ .� zoning enforcement officer, notice require- ►M 1029,18 ConnApp.488. 'Notice requirements; failure to give notice, see ments for public hearings,see Land Use Law and �`` Land Use Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 46.1. Practice;Vol.9,Fuller,§ 17.5. in opponents' due process rights r led when zoning and planning cum- § S-8 Appeal . ppea from board t t Review b appellatet o court. evew y court ed ex pane applicants' open space �� .. and granted it in executive session Text of aection effective until .Tiny 1,`2000. For text of section effective Tiny i, ots were given opporhmity to rebut 2.000, see§ 8-8,post.,> j c :on. Carlson v. Fisher (1989) 558 .orm App.488. (a) As used in this section: `61 s § 84 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, __ (1) "Aggrieved person"means a person aggrieved by a decision of a board and includes any record may be taxed by the court fc officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality charged with enforcement of any subsequent corrections or additions to order, requirement or decision of the board. In the case of.a decision by a zoning commission,planning commission, combined planning and zoning commission or zoning board 0) Any defendant may, at any time of appeals, "aggrieved person" includes any person owning land that abuts or is within a dismiss the appeal.- If the basis of th radius of one hundred feet of any.portion of the land involved in the decision of the board. appeal, the appellant shall have the b (2) `Board" means a municipal zoning commission, planning commission,.combined plan- record, grant or deny the motion. 7 ping and zoning commission, zoning board of appeals or other hoard or commission the manner provided in subsection(o)of t decision of which may be appealed pursuant to this section, or the chief elected official of a -_,(k) 'The court shall review the pr, municipality, or his designee, in a hearing held pursuant to section 22a 2b0, whose decision It_ introduce evidence in addition to-the c(maybe appealed. Complete transcript of the entire p ,. rrr: '(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section and sections 7-1s.47 and 7- presented to it, pursuant to section J147i, any person aggrieved by any decision of a board may take an appeal'to the superior testimony is necessary for the equita. court for the judicial district in which the municipality is.located.' The appeal shall be evidence or may appoint a referee or c commenced by service of process in accordance with subsections (e) and'(f) of this section the same to the court,with his or its fa fifteen days from the date that notice of the decision was published as required by the referee or committee shall constitute general statutes. The appeal shall be returned to court in the same manner and within the the court shall be made. same period of time as prescribed for civil actions brought to that court. r:1:.ri1-.s year, -r^..r. = 'lL .... ,.,- ,,..,... .. .,. ..,,( .The court, after a hearing then (c) In those situations where the approval of a planning commission must be wiferred modify or revise the decision appealed because of the failure of the commission to act on an application, any aggrieved person may �_ the court, on sustaining the appeal, m appeal under this section. The appeal shall be taken within twenty days after the expiration. or orders the 'articular board action. of the period prescribed in section 826d for action by the comriiission. P taken under section 8-29, the court rr. -`.(d) Any person affected by An action of a-planning-commission'taken'under seetion:&29 the commission. Costs shall be allow- may appeal under this section."The appeal shall be taken within thirty days after notice to reversed,affirmed in part,modified or him of the adoption of a�survey,-'map or plan or the assessment of benefits or damages n , y •i+r"r " '(nny�Appeals &indecisions of the .,(e) Service of legal 'process d;for an appeal under this section shall be directed to a proper Jsoon as is practicable unless cause is si officer and shall be made by leaving a true and attested copy of the.process with, or.at the - ..•. - ' .' usual place of abode of,the chairman or clerk of the board,and by leaving a.true and'attested '-�:(n)..No appeal taken under subset ;copy with the clerk of the mumcipality. Service on the chairman or clerk.of.the-board,aiid on -settlement between the parties to any the clerk of the municipality,shall be for the purpose of providing legal notice of the appeal to has been held before the superior .the board and shall not thereby,make the chairman or clerk of the,board.or.the.clerk of the withdrawal or settlement municipality a•necessary.party to the appeal. There shall be'no right t0 forth( yl M Service of process shall also be made on each person who petitioned.the board in the for review,on the vote of two judges c proceeding,provided his legal rights,duties or privileges were determined therein: However, rulbs'as the judges of the appellate cot failure to make service within fifteen days on parties other than-the board'shall,not,deprive hurt 'shall, except as otherwise pro* the court of jurisdiction over the appeal. If service is not made within fifteen days on a party provided by rule or law for the appea in the proceeding before the board, the court, on motion of the party or the appellant, shall modified by rule of the judges of the al make such orders of notice of the appeal as are reasonably calculated to notify the party not yet served. If the failure to make service causes prejudice to the board or any.party, the TO) The right of a person to•appeal court,after hearing,may dismiss the appeal or may make such other orders as are necessary procedure prescribed in this section, s to protect the party prejudiced. _ l,.r.:.v,:::. .�:,n adherence to these provisions wouh. ,..�,n. .JJ�..'J.�'-_�:i ,,i... •I'I i- rt (g) The appeal shall state the reasons on which it has been predicated and shall not stay csidered to be a civil action and,excc on proceedings on the decision appealed from. However, the court to which the appeal is the superior court, pleadings may b returnable may grant a restraining order, on application, and after notice to the board and summoned,substituted or otherwise jo h cause sown. ` . - _ _, ..�.. ,. •.r,-.•,.,:... .:- �,n..±a-�r ..�..'r . `(q) If any appeal has failed to be (h) The authority issuing a citation in the appeal shall take from the appellant, unless the return of the legal process due to urim appellant is an official of the municipality,a.bond or recognizance to the board,with surety to to whom it was committed,or the app: prosecute the appeal to effect ;and comply with the orders and decrees .;of theJ court. the appellant shall be allowed an addit (i) Within thirty days after the return date to court, or within any further time the court properly take the appeal. The provis- o" allows, the board shall transmit the record to the court. The record shall include, without under this section. limitation,(1)the original papers acted on by the board and.appealed from,or cer4fred copies ' � ' - "`- thereof, (2) a co of the transcript of the stenographic or sound recording in (1989;P A 89 b6, § 1; 1990,PAN9a286. PYP g 24.9,J 8.) rJ accordance with section 8-7a, and (3) the written decision of the board including the reasons therefor and a statement of any conditions imposed. By stipulation of all parties to the -f1r:f•:: -For any annotative materials r appeal,the record may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate:to limit the :1m: notes, and any other features,folu i 62 x, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. _7 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. §8-8 lecision of a board and includes any i record may be taxed by the court for additional costs. The court may require or permit charged with enforcement of any 'r_ subsequent corrections or additions to the record. case of a decision by a zoning E zoning commission or zoning board (]) Any defendant may, at any time after the return date of the appeal, make a motion to ing land that abuts or is within a dismiss the appeal. If the basis of the motion is a claim that the appellant lacks standing to 1 ,olved in the decision of the board. appeal, the appellant shall have the burden of proving his standing. The court may, on the nning commission, combined plan- record, grant or deny the motion. The court's order on the motion may be appealed in the i manner provid on. ed in subsection(o)of this section. ►r other board or commission the ;+ _ € )n, or the chief elected official of a (k) The court shall review the proceedings of the board and.shall allow any party to to section 22a-250, whose decision �:_ introduce evidence in addition to-the contents of the record if(1)the record does not contain a complete transcript of the entire proceedings before the board, including all evidence section and sections 7-147 and 7- presented to it, pursuant to section 8-7a, or.(2) it appears. to the court that additional ,ay take an appeal to the superior .= testimony is.necessary for the equitable disposition'of.the The court may take the is located. The appeal shall be evidence or may appoint a referee or.committee to.take such evidence as it directs and report ,sections (e) and (f) of this section ` the same to the court,with his or its findings-of facts and conclusions of law. Any report of a n was published as required by the referee or committee shall constitute a part of the proceedings on which the determination of n the same manner and within the the court shall be made. to that court. -.r�.:u i; (1) The court, after a hearing thereon, may reverse or affirm;wholly or partly, or may ring commission must be inferred modify or revise the decision appealed from, if a particular board action is required by law, deation, any aggrieved person may 9 the court, on sustaining the appeal; may render a judgment that modifies the board decision in twenty days after the expiration. I or orders the particular board action Tfi an'appeal from an action of a planning commission :ommission. taken under section 8-29, the court may also reassess any.damages or-benefits awarded by amission taken under section 8-29 .: the commission. Costs shall'be allowed-against the board'if'the decision appealed from is i within thirty days after notice to reversed,affirmed in part, T'?.vr8ed. modified or. y ssessment of benefits or damages h ., �,- a•., - . , s (in) Appeals from decisions 'of tlie.board shall be privileged cases and'shall be heard as etion shall be directed to a proper soon as is practicable unless cause is shown.to the con ropy of the process with, or at the = ��.- . '•::u:.r, and by leaving a true and attested (n) No appeal taken under.subsection-.()) of this,secdon..shall be withdrawn and no kman or clerk of the board and on settlement between the parties to any such appeal shall be effective unless and until a hearing Yviding legal notice of the appeal to ' has been held.before-the. superior court .and such..court•has approved such proposed rk of the board or the clerk of the withdrawal or�settlement. (o) There-shall be no right to further review except to the appellate court by certification + 2 n who petitioned the board in the for review,on the vote of two judges of the appellate court so to certify and under such other ere determined therein. However, rules'as the judges of the appellate court establish.;The procedure on appeal to the appellate r than the board shall not deprive _ ' court shall, except as otherwise:provided herein, tie in accordance with the procedures nade within fifteen days on a party provided b rule or law for the a of the party or the appellant, shall "� P Y PPS-of judgments rendered by the court unless } modified by rule of the judges of the appellate court 'y + 1 ; F calculated to notify the party not : ; +,,L .;•, ::,, ,... ; ce to the board or any party, the ,+• ,r , (p) The right of a person to appeal a,.decision of;a.board to the superior court, and the such other orders as are necessary procedure prescribed in this section,shall be liberally interpreted in any case where a strict A ` P urprise. or. injustice. The appeal shall be adherence to these provisions. would.work s Been ^predicated and shall not sta. considered to be a civil action and,except as otherwise required by this section or the rules of yr{. the curt to which the appeal is the superior court,.pleadings may be filed, amended or corrected, and parties may be and after notice to the board and summoned,substituted or.otherwise joined,as provided by the general statutes. = (q) If any appeal has wiled to be`heard'on its merits because of insufficient service or ,I ake from the appellant, unless the `' return of the legal process due to unavoidable accident or the default or neglect of the officer rzance to the board,with surety to to whom it was committed,or the appeal has been otherwise avoided for any matter of form, rders and decrees of the court. the appellant shall be allowed an additional-fifteen days from determination of that defect to AW within any further time the court Properly take the appeal. The provisions of section 52-592 shall not apply to appeals taken The record shall include, without under this section. I.appealed from,or certified copies (1989,PA 89-3b6, § 1; 1990,PA 90-286,.§§ 1;2 eff.June 8, 1990; 1991,PA 91-219; 1992,PA 92- or sound recording prepared in 249 8. _... .. .. _ of the board including the reasons '.§ ._ .n r,• ., .... ., ,ri_.. ; ,: Ni y stipulation of all parties to the For any annotative materials relating to.this sectimr, see historical and statutory rly refusing to stipulate to limit the notes,and any other features,following§•8-$.pose § 8-8 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, X § 8-8. Appeal from board to court. Review by appellate court - limitation,(1)the original papers acted thereof, (2) a copy of the transcript Text of section effective July 1, 2000. For text of section effective until July 1, accordance with section 8-7a, and (3) 2000, see§ 8-,8, ante. therefor and a statement of any cor. (a) As used in this section: - _ appeal,the record may be shortened. (1) "Aggrieved person"means a person aggrieved by a decision of a board and includes any record may be taxed by the court fo - officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality charged with enforcement of any subsequent corrections or additions to order, requirement or decision of the board. In the case of a decision by a zonin (1) Any defendant may, at any time g commission,planning commission,combined planning and zoning commission or zoning board dismiss the appeal. If the basis of th, of appeals, "aggrieved person" includes any person owning land that abuts or is within $ ?_ appeal+ the appellant shall have the b: radius of one hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of the board. . record, grant or deny the motion. T} •� (2) "Board" means a municipal zoning commission, planning commission, combined'01l h= '* manner provided in subsection(o)of t} rung and zoning commission, zoning board of appeals or other board or commission the (k) The court shall review the prc decision of which may be-appealed pursuant to this section, or the chief elected-official o of'a ` introduce evidence in addition to the cc municipality, or his designee, in a hearing held pursuant to section 22a.-250, whose decision complete transcript of the entire p- may be appealed. presented to it, pursuant to section �,+ �. .;, #�-ztestimony.is necessary for the equitai (b) Except as provided in subsections (c),(d) and (r) of this sectionandsections7-I47 and evidence or may appoint a referee or c 7-147i, any person aggrieved by any decision of•a board may take an appeal.to the superior the same to the court,with his or its fi court for the judicial district in which the municipality is located.,..The j• P Y appeal,shall .be gk, referee or committee shall constitute r commenced by service of process in accordance with subsectfons,.(e) and (f) of this section the court shall be made. within fifteen days from the date that notice of the decision was published,as required.by the (0 The court, after a hearing then general statutes. The appeal shall be returned to court in the same manner and.within.the modify or revise the decision appealed same period of time as prescribed for civil actions brought to that court ,.y, ., tr..�JatGt the court, on sustaining the appeal, m (c) In those situations where the approval of a planning'commission.must-'be:inferred or'orders the particular board action. because of the failure of the commission to act on an application,any..aggrieved person may _ taken Minder section 8=29, the coiu't n appeal under this section:'The appeal shall be taken'within twenty days after the.expiration the commission.'-Costs shall be allov of the period prescribed in section 8-26d for action by the commission. =`? -_ �•�-.+ . ��:.�� ". reversed,affirmed in part,modified or (d) Any person affected by an action of a planning commission taken,urider section-&29 -,M(m) Appeals from decisions of the may appeal under this section. -The appeal shall be taken within thirty daywafter:notice to soon*as 9s rac&able unless-cause is s: .Trim of.the adoption of a.survey, map or plan or the assessment-of benefits.or damages. P ._ n) hTo_appeal taken under subse (e) Service of legal process for an appeal under this section shall be directed•to-a-proper , '' settlement between the parties to any ',officer and shall be made by leaving a true and attested copy of the process with,.or-at.the has been held before the Superior -usual place of abode of,the chairman or clerk of the board,and by leaving-a.true and.attested withdrawal or settlement. ,copy with the clerk of the municipality. Service on.the chairman or clerk of the board and on ' the clerk of the municipalityshall be for the ose of rovidin le ,�o� T)�ere'sail be no right to firth pm'p P g gal notice of,'the' for renew,on the vote of two judges c the board and shall not thereby*make the chairman or clerk-of the board•or a clerk.of e municipality a necessary party to the appeal. - rules'as the judges of the Appellat Appellate Court shall, except as of (f) Service of process shall also be made on each person who petitioned the board.in the procedures provided by rule or law proceeding,provided his legal rights,duties or privileges were determined therein: However, Court unless modified by rule of the it failure to make service within fifteen days on parties other-than the board-"shall noVild de '"`'' ''" (p) The right of a person to appea the court of jurisdiction over the appeal. If service'is not made within fifteeri`days on•a"party .� procedure prescribed in this section, in the proceeding before the board, the court, on motion of the party or the appellant; shall adherence r these provisions ion, make such orders of notice of the appeal as are reasonably calculated to notify the party not considered to be a civil action and,ex( yet served. If the failure to make service causes prejudice to the board or-any party,-the the Superior Court, pleadings may court,after hearing,may dismiss the appeal or may make such other orders as are necessary �. to protect the party prejudiced: .: - ,; t:A ., ,_,; . , summoned,substituted or otherwise j (g) The appeal shall state the reasons on which it has,been predicated and shall not stay '„i,,(q) If any appeal has failed to be on the decision a return of the legal process due.to ins proceedingsappealed from. However, •the court to which the appeal:� to whom it was committed,or the apl returnable may grant a restraining order, on application, and after notice.to the board and the appellant shall be allowed an add. cause shown. i.:.. ........... .�5� r properly take the appeal. The provi (h) The authority issuing a citation in the appeal shall take from the appellant, unless the under this section: appellant is an official of the municipality, a bond or recognizance to the board,with surety to ;j (r� In any case in-which a board fa- prosecute the appeal to effect and comply with the orders and decrees of the court. law; ordinance.or regulation govern (i) Within thirty days after the return date to court, or within any further time the court recording of any notice either of a he allows, the board shall transmit the record to the court. The record.shall include,without action by an aggrieved person to set 64 1 - i i, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC.. ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING,.ETC. § 8-8 i4 ppellate court limitation,(1)the original papers acted on by the board and appealed from,or certified copies 'section effective until July 1, thereof, (2) a copy of the transcript of the stenographic or sound recording prepared in accordance with section 8-7a, and(3)the written decision of the board including the reasons therefor and a statement of any conditions unposed: By stipulation of all parties to the appeal,the record may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the iecision of a board and includes any record may be taxed by the court for additional costs. The court may require or permit charged with enforcement of any subsequent corrections or additions to the record. case of a decision by a zoning (j) Any defendant may, at any time after the return date of the appeal, make a motion to zoning commission or zoning board dismiss the appeal. If the basis of the motion is a claim that the appellant lacks standing to ins land that abuts or is within a .4T appeal, the appellant shall have the burden of proving.his standing. The court may, on the olved in the decision of the board. .4 record, grant or deny the motion. :The court's order on the motion may be appealed in the t"- manner provided in subsection(o)of this section. nning commission, combined plan- " r other board or commission the (k) The court shall review the.proceedings of the board and shall allow any party to �n, or the chief elected official of a introduce evidence in addition to the contents of the'record if(1)the record does not contain a to section 22a-250, whose decision complete transcript of the entire. proceedings before,the board, including all evidence presented to it, pursuant to section.8=7a, or (2) it appears to the court that additional �♦ 71 testimony Js necessary for the equitable disposition of the appeal. The court may take the this section and sections 7-147 and evidence or may appoint a referee or committee to take such evidence as it directs and report nay take an appeal to the superior ' the same to the court,with his,or its findings of facts and conclusions of law. 'Any report of a is located. The appeal shall be ' referee or committee shall constitutes.•part of the ' eedings b' which the determination of sections (e) and (f) of this section a the court shall be made. was published as required by.the .^4_ 3 the same manner and within the (1) The court, after a hearing thereon, may reverse or;t!�affirm, wholly or partly, or may ha that court modify or revise the decision appealed from. If a particular board_ action is required by law, the court,on sustainingthe appeal, ma render a• u ppeal y' j dgment that modifies the board decision icng commission must be inferred or orders the particular board action: Tn an appeal from an action of a planning commission iieation, an aggrieved on may L ' " Y g� 1� Y taken under'section 8-29, the court inay.',also reassess any-damages or benefits awarded by n twenty days after the expiration the commission."Costs shall be allowed:against the board if the decision appealed from is ' ammission: reversed,affirmed in part,_modified of re"VA ed. t anission taken under section 8-29 (m) Appesis from decisions of the-board'shall be' privileged cases and'shall be heard as e within-thirty days after notice to soon as is practicable unless cause ia4hbwn'to the contrary:;' sessment of benefits or damages. - (n) No.,appeal ta�Cen under subsection .(b) of this section shall be withdrawn and .no lion shall be directed to a proper settlement between the parties to any:such appeal shall be effective unless and until a hearing spy of the process with, or at the has been held before the Superior Court and such court has approved such proposed ,and by leaving a true and attested withdrawal or settlement. " 'yq 4AT Par+.,aa,�r a:+. . ,� w:-Ighq.gny iianan or clerk of the board and on '- •'� - ` viding legal notice of the appeal to (o) There s�haIl be no right to farther review except to the Appellate Court by certification of the board or the clerk of the ' for review,on the vote of two.judgea of•the.Appellate C6m t so to certify and under such other n rules as the judges of the Appellate Court establish. The procedure ;on appeal to the Appellate Court shall, except as otherwise provided herein, be in- accordance with the rr who petitioned the board in the procedures provided by rule or law for-the appeal of judgments rendered by the Superior i !redetermined therein: However, Court unless modified by rule of the judges of the Appellate Ciourt.. ► than the board shall not deprive (p) The right of a person toy ap'peaY a decision`ot a 1 ar to rthe Superior Court, and the ' rade within fifteen days on a party procedure prescribed in this section, shall be liberally interpi'eted'in any case where a strict ; f the'party or the appellant, shall calculated to notify the party not adherence to these provisions would work surprise or injustice. `The appeal shall' be to the board or any party, the considered to be a civil action and,except as otherwise required by this section or the rules of s uch other orders as are necessary 0`- the Superior Court, pleadings may be filed, amended or corrected, and parties may be summoned,substituted or otherwise joined,as provided by the general statutes. ` ,.;(q) If any appeal has failed to be heard on its merits because of insufficient service.or Teen predicated and shall not stay l he court to which the a is '' return of the legal process due.to.unavoidable accident or the default.or neglect of the officer i� ply to whom it was committed,or the appeal has been other wise.avoided for any matter of form, and after notice to the board and 4- the appellant shall be allowed an additional fifteen days from determination of that defect to 11 { properly take the appeal. The provisions of section 52-592 shall not apply to appeals taken y Eke from the appellant, unless the under this section. izance to the board,with surety to 1 �' (r) In any case in which aboard fails to comply with a requirement of'a general or special tiers and decrees of'the court law, ordinance or regulation governing-the content,.giving, mailing, publishing; filing or within any further time the court recording of.any notice either of a hearing or of an action taken by the board,any appeal or a The record shall include, without action by an aggrieved person to set aside the decision or action taken by the board on the W dt § 8-8 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC, . ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ET( grounds of such noncompliance shall be taken within two years of the date of that decision oP - Application of rules for civil actions to adn: action. g trative appeals;, saving statutes, see Land :.--.ti•;.��: Law and Practice.Vol.9,Fuller,§ 26.5. (1989,P.A.89-356,§ 1; 1990,PA 90-286, H 1,2, eff.June 8, 1990; 1991, P.A. 91-219; 1992,PA hL garden of proof in affordable housing app; 249,§ 8; 1999,PA 99-238,§ 5,eff.July 1,2000.) 1a_ see Land Use Law and Practice, VoL 9, FA: Historical and Statutory Notes § 51.5. Amendments Effective Dates 'mod Burden of proof in land use appeal_, see L Use Law and Practice;Vol.9,Fuller,§ 34.4- 1989 Amendment. 1989, PA 89-356, § 1, re- 1999 Act. 1999,PA 99-238,§ 8,probided: Cases involving exhaustion of administr. laced the entire section but adopted most of the •'This act shall take effect from its passa p p ge, •4 remedies,see Land Use Law and Practice,Vc former provisions,as former subsee. (a)in subset. except that sections 1 to 6, inclusive, shall take Fuller,§ 48A. (b), part of former subset. (b) in subset. (e) and effect July 1,2000." Categories of aggrieved persons, trial of ad the remaining part in subset. (g), former subset. :r, _`Jt: aril: (O in subset. (h),former subset. (d)in subset. (j), Validation of Certain Appeals 9ve appeal, see Land Use Law and Prac 1990, PA 90-286, § 3,eff.June 8,1990,•provid- VOLVoL 9,Fuller,§ 32.4. former subset. (e) in subset. (k), part of former , and modifications to agency appro' subset. (f)in subset.(1)and the remaining part in r :` or ''`:' ""^'�'`' Changes application,see Land Use Law and r eubsec. (m),former subset. fg)in subset. (o), and (a) Any appeal of*a-decision of'a zoning:c6 r , land use :former subset.(h)in snbsec.(n). mission,planning commission,planning-and.zoning lice,VoL 9,Fuller,§ 24.11. commission or zoning board of appeals in Which.e Coastal site plan applications, see Land 1990 Amendment. 1990, P.A. 90-286, § 1, final judgments has not been entered prior_to.the Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 6.5. among other changes,in subset.(b),provided that effective date of this act,.otherwise.valid except Content of agency resolutions concerning the appeal would be commenced'by service of that the party taking such appeal failed td file stick use application,.see Land Use Law and Prat process in accordance with subsets.(e)and(f)and appeal with the superior court'within fifteen days Vol 9,Fuller,§ 21.7. - that the appeal would be returned within the same of the publication of the nottee of'such de'ctsrori;ie period of time. . ::,:." ': validated. j ., <,i a '''Ss-L�� AT ,la Content of appeal from land use agency dots 1990,PA 90-286, § 2,in snbsec:(i),substituted •..(b) If any appeal of a�decision of a:zoning see Land Use Law and Practice, VOL 9, FL language providing for the transmittal of the rec- commission, planning: commission, planning and §.25'8 ord within 30 days after the return date,for provi- zoning commission or zoning board-of appeals tak Documents to be filed, defense of land use sion requiring such transmittal within 30 days en on or after August 31, 1989, and-prior.0 the peal, an Land Use Law and Practice, Vc after.service of appeal. -,;) -q-, ,-_• :„ - effective date of this act,has filled to be tried oa Fuller, = +• , its merits because the appeal has-been.dismissed 'Establishment of highway lines, see Land 1991 Amendment. 1991,PA 91-219,in subset. by the superior court for.want•of Nrisdictioij due Law and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 10.1& (1)(3), substituted provision for written_decision of to the failure of the party taking such appeal to.Me board with reasons for it and statement of condi- such appeal with the superior court within.fi_ftem •-?Evidence°ai; 'jad of tice, i ol.9, a appeal. Land Use L'aw and Practice:VoL 9,Faller,§ tions for provision for board's findings of fact and days of the publication of the notice of such deci- conclusions of law as items to be included in rec- aion, the taking such' a deuce of aggnevement,trial of administr ord. :r;T +:.�-,t:: ninety days after the effective date oftlris ]stet; �.-8ee_Land Use Law and Practice, V, 1992 Amendment. 1992, P A 92-249, § 8, in petition the court to reopen such a .: Notwith= Fuller,§ 32.6. subsea (a)(2) included within the definition of standing the provisions of section 52-212a!9f.tbg Historic district commissions,see Land Use ,board", the chief elected official of a municipality have such appealsreopen unless uch party shall hthe courave the t findght s and Practicdistricta,other unicilal administr -or his designee, in a hearing held pursuant to that(1)there has lieen a substantial• p §.22a-250,whose decision may be appealed. rrrfiingerrient Iand use appeals,see Land Use Law and Pra .of property rights or (2) the judgment* of tNe Vol.9,Fuller,§ 44A. 1999 Amendment. 1999,PA 99-238, § 6,add- superior court has been appealed and a final judg- Injunctions and temporary restraining or ed aubsec.(r). .:r_�:; , went has been rendered on that appeal" J;;y.,, other legal remedies in land use cases, see ?1r:«(1 Use Law.and Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 41.1 e• Law Review and Journal Commentaries - •1 :T ..Inland we appeals,tests for judicial re Connecticut crosses the line: The Affordable '1 ;, , Housing Appeals Act Edward J. Lyons and Mi- T t ":';}Y see Land Use Law and Practice Vol. 9 F. chael W.Lyons,65 Conn.BJ.(1991). z rr; $ 33.9. - : - s ::Intervention under C.G.SA § 22a-19; en• ,•,: ,r .•+- mental issues, trial of administrative appea- _,�: Library References „,,,`t;,;,.,; Land Use Law and Practice.Vol 9,Fuller,§ Mesne process,see Practice Book Annotatc Connecticut Practice Agency requirements for ifiing complete-land1 Vol. 1, Superior Court Civil Rules, Molle: Fuller,9 Connecticut Practice§ 4.45,15.8,232 use application, see Land Use Law acid Practice, : Horton,� 49. % ' 24.10,25.6,27.19,32.3,37.6,412,50.2. - Vol.9,Fuller,§' 15.12. .' T , , . Kaye, Effron and Kaye, 2 Connecticut Practice . -' . ' '. ' ' `:`; _ "Motion to diam�sa, lags of aggrievemen- Form 204.8. ;:• Aggrievement and environmental.issues in in- Land Use Law and Practice,VOL 9,Fuller, $ land wetland appeals, see Land Ube Law'and otion to dismiss land-use appeal; ge Action to be taken if affordable housing appeal is Practice,Vol.9,Fuller,§ 32.13. r� = 'Vi see Land Use Law and.Practice, sustained,see Land Use Law and Practice,Vol.9, r grounds, Fuller,§ 51.6. Appeals from zoning or planning decisions to Fuller,$.-27.1._ ,•; . . 9'r'... Affordable housing, other problems and consid- superior court, stay of proceedings on agencyIor- " _ otioa to dismiss land use appeal; lack � erations, see Land Use Law and Practice, Vol. 9, ders, see Land Use Law and"Practice,:V6L.9 grievement,see Land Use Law and Pracdcc Fuller,§ 51.7. _._ ::ar - :.Fuller,§ 402 9,Fuller,$ 273. _._: c OUSING, ETC. ZONING § 8-7 Title 8 Ch. 124 once duly taken by Library References new or additional Zoning and Planning e=533. .ge of conditions or CJS. Zoning and Land Planning§ 251. •ially affecting the 2nt to former deci- 1940) 16 A.2d 483, § 8-7, Appeals to board. Hearings. Effective date of exceptions or variances; filing requirements .g board of appeals nying applications ind of subsequent ons, such changes led to locality in in objections for- of permit. Burr ' 120 Conn. 287. An appeal maybe en toT_ eFM6M!!nWig act on successive board of appeals by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, if same premises board or bureau of an munici all :t is whether new Y p ty aggrieved and shall be taken within such in conditions in- time as is prescribed by a rule adopted by said board, or, if no such rule is ion. St. Patrick's adopted by the board, within thirty days, by filing with the zoning commis- els (1931) 154 A. sion or the officer from whom the appeal has been taken and with said board was without pow- a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. nying an applica- the conduct of a )f intoxicating li- appeal shall not stay any such order, requirement or decision which prohibits a food market, further construction or expansion of a use in violation of such zoning :umstances which regulations except grants Y ition of the appli- pt to such extent that the board ants a stay thereof. An ,f the store would appeal from any other order, requirement or decision shall stay,all proceed- ng Board of Ap- ings in the action appealed from unless the zoning commission or the officer nn of the property from whom the appeal has been taken certifies to the zoning board of appeals 'hanged since the after the notice of appeal has been filed that by reason of facts stated in the rat in view of the certificate a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property, in which case that the action of proceedings shall not be stayed, except by a restraining order which may be nission was erro- granted by a court of record on application, on notice to the zoning commis- &bound upon its PP ieny the permis- sion or the officer from whom the appeal has been taken and on due cause of Zoning Ap- shown. Such board shall, within the period of time permitted under section error 16 A.2d 8-7d, hear such appeal and give due notice thereof to the parties. Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in a newspaper having a ed substantial circulation in such municipality at least twice at intervals of not less than two days, the first not more than fifteen days, nor less than ten days, 1e grant of a and the last not less than two days before such hearing. In addition to such t or decision notice, such board may, by regulation, provide for notice by mail to persons Lpter, or. any who are owners of land which is adjacent to the land which is the subject of this chapter, the hear* . Ri Whenever a zoning oaro "app or denies any special exception or variance in the zoning regulations applicable 121 1 § 8-7 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING Title 8 Ch. 124 to any property or sustains or reverses wholly or partly any order, require- exceptiona; ment or decision appealed from, it shall state upon its records the reason for which its d its decision and the zoning bylaw, ordinance or regulation which is varied in 1977 Am its application or to which an exception is granted and, when a variance is substituted the granted, describe specifically the exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship parties on which its decision is based. Notice of the decision of the board shall be for require: published in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in the municipality and give du and addressed b certified mail to an pp d et days Y y person who appeals to the board, by its deleted regt secretary or clerk, under his signature in any written, printed, typewritten or the appeal stamped form, within fifteen days after such decision has been rendered. 1977, P.A Such exception or variance shall become effective upon the filing of a co sentence; it thereof(1) in the office of the town, city or borough clerk, as the case may be, lowingany eats but, in the case of a district, in the offices of both the district clerk and the tence by su town clerk of the town in which such district is located and (2) in the land by subs rep by stitut records of the town in which the affected premises are located, in accordance time as is fi- with the provisions of section 8-3d. (1949 Rev., § 843; 1951,Supp., § 159b; 1953,Supp.§ 285c; 1955,Supp. § 378d; 1959, P.A. 458; 1959, P.A. 577, § 5; 1959, P.A. 614, § 4; 1963, P.A. 55, § 1; 1965, Feb.Sp. Aggrieved p. Sess., P.A. 622, § 2; 1967, P.A. 884, § 1; 1971, P.A. 862, § 4, eff. Oct. 1, 1971; 1975, Appeals to s P.A. 75-86, § 2; 1977, P.A. 77-450, § 3; 1977, P.A. 77-509, § 6; 1984, P.A. 84-122; Legal notice 1987, P.A. 87-215, § 4, eff. July 1, 1987.) Meetings of Historical Note Administr. Amendments tire of such filing shall have been published in Safety Code. 1959 Amendments. 1959, P.A. 458, substi- a newspaper having a substantial circulation in Connectic: tuted reference to applicant to the zoning the municipality before such effective date. BJ. 262, 45-7 board of such board peals for reference to appellant to Appeals from such decisions of the board may Municipal be made by persons aggrieved in the manner (1951) 25 CA 1959 P.A.577,§ 5,changed section by insert- set forth in section 8-8 within fifteen days ing the words'but, in the case of a district, in from the effective date thereof,the time limita- the offices of both the district clerk and the tions set forth in section 8-8 notwithstanding." town clerk of the town in which such district is Zoning an located". 1%7 Amendment. 1967, P.A. 884, § 1, pro. CJ.S. Zor 1959 PA 614, § 4, further changed section vided for notice of the board's decision. by 187, 189 b certified mail to any person who appeals to the y substituting"Notice of the time and place of board, within ten days after such decision has such hearing shall be published in a newspaper been rendered instead of former provision re- having a substantial circulation in such munic- quiring such certified mailing within three Taking b% ipality at least twice at intervals of not less days after such decision. claim. Will than two days, the first not more than fifteen Hamilton B days, nor less than ten days, and the last not 1971 Amendment. 1971, P.A. 862, § 4, sub- less than two days before such hearing. Said stituted, "within sixty-five days after receipt of board shall decide such appeal within sixty the notice of appeal, hear such" for "fix a Appeal as days after the hearing" for the words "and to reasonable time for the hearing of any"follow- 21 the public and decide the same within a rea- ing "Said board shall"; increased the number Bomd,appei sonable time". of days the board is to decide such appeal to Board re [e� 1%3 Amendment. 1963, P.A. 55, § 1, re- "sixty-five" from "sixty" days; and increased Burden v p quired the board to state its reasons for denial the number of days to within "fifteen" days of special.exceptions or variances and required from "ten days. Concurring a statement of reasons for sustainingorders, Decision of: 1975 Amendment. 1975, P.A. 75-86, § 2, requirements or decisions appealed. required the board's statement of reasons to Generaii 1%5 Amendment. 1965, Feb.Sp.Sess., P.A. include the zoning bylaw,ordinance or regula. Publicat 622, § 2, added the present second and third lion which is varied in its application or to Reasons from the last sentences; deleted at the end of which an exception is Evidence, he the section the followinglanguage: p granted and, when a Exhaustion guage: ", and no- variance is granted,to describe specifically the 122 Failure to se 1NG, ETC. ZONING § 8-7 Tide 8 Ch. 124 !r, require- exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship on ing "shall become effective", by substituting reason for which its decision is based. "0)" for "shall be filed" following "a copy ',s varied in 1977 Amendments. 1977, P.A. 77-450, § 3, thereof", and by adding subd. (2). substituted requirement that the board hear 1984 Amendment. 1984, P.A. 84-122, pro- variance is the appeal and give due notice thereof to the vided for appeal to be taken to the board it hardship parties within the time permitted under§ 8-7d within 30 days if no rule for such appeal is rd shall be for requirement that the board hear the appeal adopted by the board. unicipality and give due notice thereof to the parties with- 1987 Aendment. 1987, P.A. 87-215, § 4, au- in 65 days after receipt of notice of appeal,and thorized the board of appeals,by regulation,to )ard, by its deleted requirement that the board shall decide provide for notice by mail to persons who are written or the appeal within 65 days after the hearing, owners of land which is adjacent to the land rendered. 1977, PA. 77-509, § 6, inserted the fourth which is the subject of the hearing. of a co sentence; inserted, in the fiftlt sentence, "from copy any other order, requirement or decision"fol- Derivation se may be, lowing"An appeal"; and amended the last sen. 1925, P.A. ch. 242, §§ 8 to 10. 'k and the tence by substituting "or variance" for ", vari- 1930 Rev., § 428. the land ance or reversal' following "Such exception", 1947, Supp. § 127i. by substituting"upon the filing of"for"at such 1951, Supp. § 159b. ccordance time as is fixed by the board,provided"follow- 1953, Supp. § 285c. Cross References i78d; 1959, Aggrieved parties, municipal planning commission, see § 8-28. 65, Feb.Sp. Appeals to superior court following exhaustion of administrative remedies, see § 4-183. 971; 1975, Legal notices, publication of, qualified newspapers, see § 1-2. .A. 84-122; Meetings of government agencies required to be with notice and open to public, see § 1-21. law Review Commentaries Administration of Connecticut State Fire Recent developments in Connecticut zoning, Published in Safety Code. (1978) 10 Conn.L.Rev. 1016. law. (1957) 31 Conn.B.J. 286. I'rculation in Connecticut law of zoning. (1967) 41 Conn. ective date. B.J. 262, 453. Regional welfare analysis in zoning actions. board may Municipal zoning law in Connecticut. (1979) 12 Conn.L.Rev. 93. the manner (1951) 25 Conn.BJ. 162. ifteen days time limita- 1lbrary References ehstanding." Zoningand Planning e-358 et ,:4, § 1, pro- g �' API from zoning board of appeals, see p C.J.S.CS Zoning and Land Planning §§ 185, Conn. Prac. Book Ann., 2d, Vol. 2, Kaye Jeecision by 187, 189. and Effron, Form 204.8. peals to the lecision has United States Supreme Court revision re- I Taking by zoning regulation, ripeness of S.Ct. 3108, 473 U.S. 172, 87 L.Ed.2d 126, on ithin three claim. Williamson Co. Regional Planning v. remand 779 F.2d 50. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 1985, 105 Z.§ 4, sub- r receipt of Notes of Decisions for ..fix a I Appeal as requirement for judicial review Hearings By"follow- 21 Generally lie number Board appeal as stay of proceedings 9 Evidence 14 c appeal to Board review of prior determinations 10 Notice generally 12 increased Burden of proof 17 teen' days Concurring vote of board 3 Publicationby �off notice 16 13 Decision of board Witnesses 13 5-8 § 2, Generally 18 Mandamus to compel board review 8 or reasons ns to Publication of board decisions 20 Nature and scope of board functions 1 tion o or r Reasons stated on record 19 Notice generally, hearings 12 r t to o Evidence, hearings 14 Persons entitled to appeal 4 J. when a Exhaustion of remedies S Publication of board decisions 20 ifically the Failure to seek appeal 7 Publication of notice, hearings 13 123 y §8-7 ZONTING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONT1 Reasons stated on record, decision of board 3. Concurring vote of board Title 8 Ch 1: 19 Though board did not distinguish from Scope of board functions 1 g guish between its from z Time to take appeal 6 two separate functions of passing on applica- facility Variances 2 tion, under local regulations, for permit in zoning Voting by board, hearings 16 nature of special exception to permit gasoline I jurisdic Witnesses, hearings 15 service station, for which affirmative vote of istence four members was required and passing on to deter application, under statute,for certificate of ap- lation t proval from board acting as agent of state, for cated. which affirmative vote of only three members 549 A.2 1. Nature and scope of board functions was required,where only three members voted in favor of applicants, F�ceF A board of appeals, having limited powers, granted and certificate o approval likewise exhaust must act within limits of powers granted to it should have been denied. Sun Oil Co. v. Zon- pealing by zoning ordinance. Bora v. Zoning Bd. of ing Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hamden(1966) board Appeals of Town of Norwalk (1971) 288 A.2d 221 A.2d 267, 154 Conn. 32. review 89, 161-Conn. 297. remedy The action of four members of city zoning con Faj On application for approval of construction board of adjustments or appeals in granting Conn.AF gasoline station both as to zoning and statu- applications for certificate of approval of gas- Oftory requirements, zoning board of appeals is oline station location and variance of require- lid c called upon to make two distinct decisions, ments of zoning rules and regulations at meet- valid nc acting in different capacities and applying dif- ing not attended by fifth member was valid as beard o: ferent sets of standards, and can not consider in compliance with statutorycourt its statutory and zoning functions as a single if provision for amendment provisions, of zon- cow ag issue for decision making purposes. Sun Oil ing regulations applied, in absence of protest 347 A.2 Co. v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals of Town of Ham- required thereby. St. John's Roman Catholic 347 A 2c den (1966)221 A.2d 267, 154 Conn. 32. Church of Stamford v. Board of Adjustments 6. Timf. The power to review order of zoning en- or Appeals of City of Stamford(1939)8 A.2d 1, forcement officer and to reverse, affirm or 125 Conn. 714. 1967, modify order is vested in zoningboard of a taking c lr 4. Persons entitled to appeal Plainvill, peals both to provide aggrieved persons with §§ 8-8 a full and adequate administrative relief and to hers of land within survey of street lines which ar give reviewing court benefit of local board's for new highway system in town had standing commis< judgment. Country lands, Inc. v. Swinnerton to appeal as"affected"persons from section of (1963) 193 A.2d 483, 151 Conn. 27. planning commission approving and adoptingCommis such. Schwartz v. Town of Hamden ( 975 A.2d 21, A zoning board of appeals is primarily an 357 A.2d 488, 168 Conn. 8. Thougi administrative agency. Florentine v. Town of ings, trig Darien administrative agency. A.2d for tin Conn. 415. Persons seeking to appear from decision of zoning board of a waived e Board of zoning appeals of citywas an ad- they were appeals must establish that peals is i s aggrieved by showing that they had Appeals , ministrative agency acting as a quasi-judicial a specific, personal, and legal interest in sub body. Koslow v. Board of Zoning Appeals of ject matter of the decision, as distinguished 544 165 City of New Haven (1955) 112 A.2d 513, 19 from general interest such as is concern of all All cars Conn-Sup. 303. See, also, Spesa v. Zoning Bd. members of the community, and that they ing boar; of Appeals of City of New London (1954) 109 were specially and injuriously affected in their §§ 8-8 a' A.2d 362, 141 Conn. 653; Wadell v. Board of property or other legal rights. Gregorio v. days frorr Zoning Appeals of City of New Haven (1949) Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Windsor from dec 68 A.2d 152, 136 Conn. 1. (1967) 232 A.2d 330, 155 Conn. 422. granting Municipal zoning board of a Even if city could be esto versals, c late tribunal, which acts in quasi appeals caa- that a certain building violatteeddzonincl emria began on aci tions, such estoppel g Berconnard d p ty, and reaches decision only after presen- peel could not defeat adjacent Bernard tation of evidence deemed to warrant such property owner's right as an aggrieved proper- of Town action. Burr v. Rago (1935) 180 A. 444, 120 ty owner to seek and obtain relief from the Conn.Sup. Conn. 287. beard of zoning appeals. Pascale v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of New Haven (1962) Time w 2. Variances 186 A.2d 377, 150 Conn. 113. from acti granting , For annotations relating to the grant or deni- 5- Exhaustion of remedies former pr al of variances in particular cases, factors con- Landowner operating solid waste facility might be f de under by the board eta,see Notes of Decisions could contest validity of cease and desist order date under§ 8-6. issued b peals of Ci y zoning enforcement officer, even 124 151 Conn. 'USING, ETC. ZONING Title 8 Ch. 124 §8-7 3 though landowner did not seek review of order Note 10 lguish between its from zoning board of appeals, Section 8-8, providing generally for appeals sling on applica- facilitys contest was t challenge validity of from zoning board of appeals did not formerly s, for permit in e zoning regulations,as zoning board of appeals, provide time limit for appeal from special ex- permit gasoline o caption or variance granted by board, in view jurisdiction was limited to consideration of ex- of provision in this section (deleted in 1965), 'irrnative vote of � istence of alleged violation, but did not extend and passing on to determination of legality of an zoning r specifically providing time limit for appeals certificate of a y g egu- from special exception y P- lation upon which alleged violation was redi- Leonard _ ption or variance granted b gent of state, for sated. Town of Beacon Falls v. Posick (1988) Cbity of Norwalk(1g6201 AZd 466A151C,osnn 'three members 549 A.2d 656, 17 Conn A members voted pp' 17 646. it could not be Exception to general rule that party must exhaust his administrative remedies before a Eton 84 stating time for appeal from a iproval likewise pealing to court of law occurs when zoning zoning board of appeals had no bearing i Oil Co. v. Zon- ng to 1965 amendment) on time for a (prior Hamden (1966) board of appeals cannot offer party seeking from appeal to review any available avenue for relief,or when rou V.from gti of A variance by board. Au- remedy would be inadequate. Town of Bea. Zoning Appeals of Town of East > of city zoning ( con Falls v. Posick (1988) 549 A.2d 656, 17 Haven (1964) 198 A.2d 60, 151 Conn. 378. als in granting I Conn.App. 17. 1pproval of gas. 7. Failure to seek appeal nice of require. I Landowner, by failing to litigate claim of Plaintiffs had administrative remedy of ap. lation at meet- valid nonconforming use before city zoni board ng peal to zoning board of appeals from refusal of er was valid as of appeals failed to exhaust its adminis- zoning enforcement officer to trative remedies before bringing action is removal of earth materials,and he,r ,Permit foor rovisions, even court against the ci Pros change of zon- court eg Home,Inc.v.City of Norwalk Con pursue that remedy precluded them from seek_ :nce of protest 347 A.2d 637, 32 Conn. Sup. 214. ag judicial review. Country Lands, Inc. v. oman Catholic Swinnerton(1963) 193 A.2d 483, 151 Conn.27. ff Adjustments I 6. Time to talcs appeal 1939)8 A.2d 1, 8, Mandamus to compel board review 1967, Sp.A.255 allowing a 20-day period for Mandamus was proper action to compel per- taking appeals from decision of town of Plainvilllee zoning commission controlled oveerr formance by zoning board of appeals of its duty to hear aggrieved Of street lines §§ 84 and 8-10 setting at 15 days the time in pis appeal from which appeals must be taken from a zoningadverse decision of zoning enforcement offi- had standing commission. Pizzola v. Planning and Zonin cer. Palmieri V. Zoning Bd. of A om section of Commission of Town of Plainville (1974) 355 Town Of W� plus of and adopting Conn.Sup. 625.�rt (1975) 349 A.2d 731, 32 =den (1975) A2d 21, 167 Conn. 202. Though zoning board of appeals held hear- Where complaint alleged refusal by defen- ings, trial court erred in holding that board dant zoning board of appeals to hear plaintiffs n decision of waived or modified 30-day time limit fora appeal from adverse decision of zoning en- tha the that peals to it. Bankers Trust Co.V.ZoningBd.of forcement officer, defendant board's demurrer that they had Appeals of Town of Weston (1974) 34 A.2d to complaint constituted admission by board of rarest in sub 544, 165 Conn. 624. refusal to render decision which would allow distinguished All classes of a plaintiff to avail himself of statutory right to plus from d oncern of all ing boards of a decisions of zon. appeal. Palmieri v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of -1d that they appeal or zoning boards under Town of Westport (1975) 349 A.2d 731, 32 =red in their §§ 84 and 8-9 were to be taken within 15 ConnSup, 625. Gregorio V. days from date of decision, except for appeals Of Windsor from decisions of zoning boards of appeal 9• Board appeal as stay of proceedings '2 granting variances, special exceptions, or re- This section providing that versals, on which the 15-day appeal period appeal to zoning am claiming began on effective date of the decision and was board of appeals stays "all Proceedin wing regula- contingent on publication required by § 8-3. tion a Ss"a �' eat adjacent PP�1ed from includes, within quoted Bernard v. Planning and Zoning Commission phrase, criminal procedures provided by _ved proper- of Town of Westport (1965) 213 A.2d 527, 26 § 8-12 for violation of zoning ordinance.. of from the Conn.Sup. 85. State v- Magnota (1962) 177 A-2d 515, 1 Conn, v. Board of Time within which a Cir. 151, 23 ConnSup. 124. aven (1962) from action of zoningboard might p men 10. Board review,of prior determinations appeals in granting a special exception was governed by Board of zoning appeals should not ordinari- former provision of this section that appeal ly review its own decisions and revoke action iste facility might be taken within 15 days from effective once dulytaken where it does not a date of decision. Huhta v, Zoning Bd- of A desist order I p- there has been change in conditions pp or tthat -Meer, even peals.of City of Stamford(1964)202 A-2d 139, other conditions materially affecting merits of � 151 Conn. 694. subject matter had intervened and no vested I 125 i ZONTING, Note 10 PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONIIr N Title 8 Ch. 124 rights had arisen. Page v. Board of Adjust- Dadukian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of 12. — ment of City of New Britain (1965) 206 A.2d Bridgeport (1949) 68 A.2d 123, 135 Conn. 706. 424, 152 Conn.301. See,also, Mynyk v.Board See, also, Torello v. Board of Zoning Appeals Due nc of Zoning Appeals of Town to Stratford (1963) of New Haven (1941) 16 A.2d 591, 127 Conn. to be he, 193 A.2d 519, 151 Conn. 34. 307; Burr v.Rago(1935) 180 A.444, 120 Conn. jurisdicti Ordinarily, where relief sought on subse- 287. peals of( quent application is substantially the same as While municipal zoning board of a Conn.Apr that sought on prior application, either change PP�s has Since i that conditions must have occurred since deg- liberal discretion to decide whether to reverse its former decisions, denying zoning he sion on prior application or other considera- buildingyt� applications for notice of tions materially affecting the merits of the sub- in cous and permit, bo reasonabltsand 'able appeals tc ject matter must have intervened and no vested exercised,and based on evidence reasonably stain appeals' rights have arisen before the administrative ing decision. Burr v. evidence (1935)fairly u taro could not agency is justified in reversing itself on the 120 Conn. 287. See, also, Torello v. Board of �• of 4Ar 9 subsequent application. Fiorilla v.Zoning Bd. Zoning Appeals of New Haven (1941) 16 A.2d A.2d 10 of Appeals of City of Norwalk (1957) 129 A.2d 591, 127 Conn. 307. Compli� 619, 144 Conn. 275. While power of municipal zoning board of ments is F Although ordinarily after administrative appeals to reconsider its decisions should not board of board has made a decision it is powerless to be interpreted with too much refinement, nor notice col reverse itself, it may, nevertheless, do so, if hedged about with technicalities, it is not arbi- Zoning Bc there has been a material change in circum- nary power, but should be exercised only field (197F stances or if other considerations materiallyy I Where r. affecting merits a subject matter have inte When there is justification and good cause vened and no vested rights have arisen. Atlan- therefor. Burr v. Rago (1935) 180 A. 444, 120 lion for c tic Refining Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Conn. 287. given in Town of Milford (1955) 111 A.2d 1, 142 Conn. A reversal by a zoning board of appeals of its and prior 64• See, also, Spencer v. Board of Zoning Previous action granting a buildingCory tatut Appeals of City of New Haven(1954) 104 A.2d allowed only when there is justifiation land with stator 373, 141 Conn. 155; Sipperley v. Board of good cause- Texas Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Ap- Ap notice Appeals on Zoning of Town of Westport(1953) peals of City of Hartford (1951) 17 Conn.Sup. 330pels of ,155 C( 98 A.2d 907, 140 Conn. 164. 309. A board of zoning appeals may exercise a A zoning board of a Although Y be appeals will not ordinarily the Legisla liberal discretion in deciding, upon a new ap Permitted to review its own decisions and in general plication, whether to reverse earlier decision, revoke action once duly taken,since otherwise mnt but its decision is subject to judicial review there would be no finality to the proceeding. notice that upon question of whether it has exercised its Clark v. McDonough (1938) 6 Conn.Sup. 324. had not ad discretion in a reasonable and legal way and upon evidence which fairly sustains its actions. 11. Hangs--Generally Puskarz vHartford (I Spencer v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Even when conduct of board of zoning ap- Cofo Ilan New Haven (1954) 104 A.2d 373, 141 Conn. peals of city would not actuall P 155. See, also, Sipperley v. Board of Appeals trust in minds of others, but nightonlly create cite is a prc on Zoning of Town of Westport (1953) 98 A.2d suspicion of unfairness in mind of one ad- action of e, r. variance, 907, 140 Conn. 164; Torello v.Board of Zoning versely affected by board's decision, it is far u ing Bd Appeals of New Haven(1941) 16 A.2d 591, 127 better that no room be given for suspicion or stg Bd a j Conn.307; Burr v.Rago(1935) 180 A.444, 120 cavil. Koslow v. Board of Zoning Appeals of . of Conn. 287. City of New Haven (1955) 112 A.2d 513, 19 (1966) 220 . Where zoning board's grounds for refusing Conn.Sup. 303. Provision: application for exception to permit applicants Proceedings before zoning boards are infor- and provid: to operate asphalt mixing business in general mal, strict rules of evidence do not apply, and ordinance r business area included statement that evidence only requirement is that conduct o arin beard of zor did not establish that asphalt mixing business shall not violate fundamentals of natural jus-- in d such eno was light industry, such statement was not a tice. Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning and Zon- g determination that business was not light in- ing Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich peals of Tow dustry,and did not prohibit board from recon- (1954) 102 A.2d 316, 140 Conn. 527. 26 Conn.Suf sidering revised application. Mitchell Land Zoning board of a ��y aPPe Co. v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of appeals was under no duty board of zo Town of Greenwich (1954) 102 A 2d 316, 140 to grant rehearing upon original appeal or to time for he Conn, 527, make suggestions to petitioners as to how their requirement A city zoning board of a Plans should be changed,or to grant permit to requirement ordinarily citybe appeals should not build upon condition that they be changed. with enforc. permitted to review its own deci- Piccolo v. Town of West Haven (1936) 181 A sions and revoke action once duly taken by it. 615, 120 Conn. 449. any applicar 126 its statutory USING, ETC. ZONING Title 8 Ch. 124 §8-7 Note 13 .ppeals of City of 12 — Notice generally including s p 3, 135 Conn. 706. g special exceptions and to determine ZoningA Due notice to interested parties of a hearing and vary application of zoning ordinances. Appeals to be held by zoning board is n Lunt v. ZoningBd. of Appeals � 5 44 127 Conn. jurisdiction. Bencivenga v. Zoning Bd of Ap. Wallingford (1963) 191 A d 553, 1 0 Conn• �•444, 120 Conn. peals of City of Milford(1984)478 A2d 1049,2 . 532. appeals has Conn.App. 384. City board, in reviewing action of zoning rd of a Since property owner who was subject of board, was acting in a le gislative and not an tether to reverse ) zoning hearing was an interested party and no administrative capacity, and therefore the fact applications for notice of hearing was given b zoning that board failed to �n is reviewable Y g board of give notice and provide a ably and legally appeals to the property owner,zoning board of hearing before taking action, and considered ce fairly sustain- appeals' decision denying building permit letters opposing the amendment without giving 935) 180 A. 444, could not be sustained. Bencivenga v. Zoning the person seeking amendment an opportunity ello v. Board of Bd- of Appeals of City of Milford (1984) 478 to see the letters or to refute them, did not (1941) 16 A.2d A.2d 1049, 2 Conn.App. 384. deny due process and did not vitiate the action Compliance with prescribed notice require- of the board. Leslie v. Board of Representa- ments is prerequisite to valid action by zoning fives of City of Stamford (1961) 166 A.2d 855, oning board of board of appeals, and failure to give per 8 Conn. 44. ions should not notice constitutes judicial defect. WrightWn� Where Legislature did not make speck pro- refinement, nor Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of New Fair- visions for notice and hearing by city board in s, it is not my field (1978) 391 A.2d 146, 174 Conn, 488. its review of amendment to zoning map d exercised cause I Where notice of public hearing on applica- adopted by zoning board, the court could not I80 A. 444, 120 lion for special exception and variance war write such a provision to the charter by judi- cial fiat. Burke v.Board of Representatives of given in compliance with zoning regulations and prior to municipality's adoption of statu- City of Stamford (1961) 166 A.2d 849, 148 >f appeals of its tory notice requirements, failure to comply Conn. 33. ding permit is with statutory notice requirements did not ren- Notice of a hearing is not required to contain stification and der notice invalid. Gregorio v. Zoning Bd. of an accurate forecast of precise action which !ng Bd. of Ap- Appeals of Town of Windsor (1967) 232 A.2d will be taken upon subject matter referred to 17 Conn.Sup. 330, 155 Conn. 422. in the notice. Neuger v. Zoning Bd. of City of Although it had excepted other provisions Stamford (1958) 145 A.2d 738, 145 Conn. 625. not ordinarily the Legislature did not except notice provision Where notice of hearing on appeal from decisions and in general zoning enabling act from require- building inspector's refusal to grant applicant a once otherwise ment that act be affirmatively adopted so that permit to construct building which would have to proceeding. notice provisions did not apply to city which violated New London zoning ordinance did not onn.Sup. 324. had not adopted general zoning enabling act, give notice that applicant was seeking a vari- Puskarz v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of ance, zoning board of appeals had no jurisdic- Hartford (1967) 232 A.2d 109, 155 Conn. 360. tion to grant the permit, and the grant thereof of zoning ap Compliance with statutoryprocedure for no- war void. Smith v. F. W. Woolworth Co. produce dis- tice is a prerequisite to an vlid and effective (1The 111 must 552, 1n Conn. 88. he it only create action of zoning board in granting requested There must o due notice i hearing o d.i of one ad- variance,and failure to give proper notice con- conducted before an administrative board.ion, it-is far stitutes a jurisdictional defect. Aurora v, Zon_ Parsons v. Board of Zoning A suspicion or g Appeals of City of ing Bd. of Appeals of Town of East Haven New Haven(1953)99 A.2d 149, 140 Conn.290. ig Appeals of (1966) 220 A.2d 277, 153 Conn. 623. While notice of the hearing on the applica- A.2d 513, 19 Provisions of s tion to the board of zoning Pedal act revising city charter g appeals did not and providing for zoning and of city zoning meet the statutory requirement,it could not be •ds are infor- ordinance relative to notice of hearings before said that the plaintiff was prejudiced, where ,t apply, and board of zoning appeals were not repugnant the plaintiff was represented at the hearing by t of hearing and were not repealed b p grant to, three of its officials and it did not appear that natural jus- ing such notice. Galliot by, general gd,regard- their objections to the application were imped- ng and Zon- peals of Town of Hartford(1966)218 A.2d 540 �' L ampson Lumber Co. v. Board of Zoning Greenwich 26 Conn.Sup. 260. Appeals of City of New Haven (1943) 12 Conn. [7• Supp. 70. ider no duty "Any appeal" within this section stating that Y board of zoning appeals shall fix reasonable 13• — Publication of notice appeal or to time for hearing any appeal did not restrict In determining whether there have been ten to how their requirement of notice to appeals from orders, days between first publication of notice and nt permit to requirements, or decisions of officials charged public hearing before zoning board of appeals, be changed. with enforcing zoning statutes but included both terminal days are excluded in the compu- t936) 181 A. any application submitted to board to invoke cation. Dinamiao v. excluded d in t 387 A.2d its statutory powers to hear and decide matters tali 174 Conn 351. 127 e §8--7 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONINGNote 13 Title 8 Ch. 124 Where only nine days had elapsed between Proceedings before an administrative board since this c. first publication of notice and public hearing are informal and such a board is not bound by Carp oil Cc before zoning board of appeals, statutory no- strict rules of evidence and may act upon facts 3 Conn.Sur tice was fatally defective and action of zoning which are known to it even though they are board was invalid. DiCamillo v. Clomiro not produced at hearing. Parsons v. Board of 17. Burde: (1978) 387 A.2d 560, 174 Conn. 351. Zoning Appeals of City of New Haven (1953) Burden o Notice of hearing relating to application for 99 A-2d 149, 140 Conn. 290. in decision zoning variance,which was published on Janu- who has a; ary 13, 14 and 15 in a newspaper having sub- 13. — Witnesses of Appeals stantial circulation, the hearing to be held on At hearing no one may be deprived of right A.2d 799, 1 January 22, was fatally defective under statute to produce relevant evidence or to cross-exam- requiring that notice of time and place of such ine witnesses produced by his adversary or to 18. Decisic hearing be published in a newspaper at least be fairly apprised of facts upon which board is This sue; twice at intervals of not less than two days, the asked to act. Parsons v. Board of Zoning Ap- of appeals s first not more than 15 days, nor less than 10 peals of City of New Haven(1953)99 A.2d 149, after hearin days,and the last not less than two days before 140 Conn. 290. and does nc such hearing. Aurora v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals Parties appearing before zoning board of ap- dered more of Town of East Haven (1966) 220 A.2d 277, peals acting in quasi-judicial capacity,are enti- hue v. Zonir 153 Conn. 623. fled to cross-examination of witnesses; and walk (1967) Zoning board of appeals, in giving notice of board may not control proceedings before it by hearing wherein special exception from zoning requirement that attorneys desiring to cross-ex- 19. — Re ordinance was sought, sufficiently complied amine witness should ask questions through Provision with requirements of charter regarding notice the board. Wadell v.Board of Zoning Appeals of zoning a where notice of hearing was published in two of City of New Haven (1949) 68 A.2d 152, 136 action was d city daily newspapers on three consecutive Conn. 1. not fundame days starting nine days prior to hearing and not disturb c where charter required reasonable time for 16. — Voting by board Appeals of T hearing after notice with no time limitation Zoning board's action in granting a variance 540, 26 Conr being set forth, although general statute re- was not illegal on ground that two members of quired first notice not more than 15 days or the zoning board were ineligible to vote at the It is desira less than 10 days prior to hearing. Galliot v. continued hearing because they were not state reasons Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hartford present at the first hearing where abutting does not basis (1966) 218 A.2d 540, 26 Conn.Su . 260. g to find basis P landowner failed to satisfy his burden of show- found therei: Both terminal days within this section re- ing that the two board members did not ac- held. Ward quiring publication of notice at least twice at quaint themselves sufficiently with the issues of Hartford intervals of not less than two days,the first not raised, the evidence adduced and the argu- 141. more than 15 days nor less than 10 days before ments pressed at the first public hearing in hearing, and the last not less than two days order to exercise an informed judgment at the Unless sor before hearing, are excluded in the computa- second public hearing. Grillo v.Zoning Bd.of finding of f< tion. Lunt v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town Appeals of City of West Haven(1985)493 A.2d appeals bases of Wallingford (1963) 191 A.2d 553, 150 Conn. 275, 4 Conn.App. 205. prerequisite t 532. e Where one of five members of board of a d board's re a zoning appeals of city a desirable. S 14. — Evidence tY appealed to board from Town of Mar action of building inspector refusing requested Conn. 478. Zoning board's action in admitting records building permit and variance, and, at public and exhibits from earlier hearing on same sub- hearing of board, appealing member disqual. Where zoni jest,even if objected to,did not constitute such ified himself,and another member was absent, action in grai error as would vitiate board's action in grant- and appeal was favorably acted on next day at lations, court ing exception to zoning ordinance. Mitchell special executive meeting, at which four of the could only b} Land Co. v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Ap- five members were present, vote of member what the facts peals of Town of Greenwich (1954) 102 A.2d who was absent from public hearing, was un- those facts bt 316, 140 Conn. 527. lawful, and no public hearing was held as Appeals on Zo Statements of counsel made in informal, required by Gen.SLSupp.1953,§ 285c(this sec- 64 A.2d 875, 1 open and public hearing before municipal tion), and appeal to court of common pleas by Failure of board of zoning appeals, where they were sub- adjoining property owner would be sustained, find specifics ject to question and contradiction from the Koslow v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of order grantir. opposition, were entitled to such weight and New Haven(1955) 112 A-2d 513, 19 Conn.Sup. building in b: credence as the board deemed them worthy to 303. dense zone c receive. McMahon v.Board of Zoning Appeals Evidence of individual views of board of which made r. of City of New Haven(1954) 101 A.2d 284, 140 zoning appeal is not available to show reasons that board wa Conn. 433. actuating board or grounds of its decision, sons therefor. 128 R SING, ETC. ZONING §8-7 Title 8 Ch. 124 Note 20 nistrative board since this can only be shown by vote of board. peals of City of New Haven(1947)53 A.2d 659, is not bound by Carp Oil Co.v.Board of Zoning Appeals(1936) 133 Conn. 614. y act upon facts 3 Conn.Sup. 304. Failure of a city zoning board of hough they are tY 8 appeals to ans v. Board of 17. Burden of proof comply with mandate that whenever a zoning Haven (1953) Burden of proving existence of all authority or board of appeals makes any eged error change in a zoning regulation it shall state in decision of zoning commission is on party upon its records the reason why the change who has alleged it. Armstrong v. Zoning Bd. was made did not invalidate action of the of Appeals of Town of Washington (1969) 257 board in granting an application for variation :prived of right A.2d 799, 158 Conn. 158. of a zoning regulation. Nielsen v. Board of to cross-exam- Appeals on Zoning of City of Bridgeport(1942) idversary or to 18. Decision of board--Generally 27 A.2d 392, 129 Conn. 285. which board is This section providing that the zoning board It is not strictlynecessary that the zoning of Zoning Ap- of appeals shall decide appeal within 60 days board give reasons for its action in rejecting an 3)99 A.2d 149, after hearing is directory and not mandatory, application for change of use of premises but it and does not render voidable a decision ren- is good practice and helpful in interpreting its ig board of ap- dered more than 60 days after hearing. Dono- motives. Levine v.Zoning Board of Appeals of acity,are enti- hue v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Nor- Meriden (1938) 198 A. 173, 124 Conn. 53. ritnesses; and walk (1967)235 A.2d 643, 155 Conn. 550. Zoning board of appeals was not .gs before it by required to .ng to cross-ex- 19. - Reasons stated on record give reasons for its decisions, or to make for- mal:tions through Provision of general statute requiring board refu finding of facts upon which its action in oning Appeals of zoning appeals to record reasons for its t permission t e erect building was A.2d 152, 136 action was directoryonlyand lapses that were to b�' though it e such d proper procedure for board for its not fundamental to oar 's jurisdiction should deciisiioon. Piccolo v Towing and state tof reasons Haven not disturb decision. Galliot v. Zoning Bd. of (1936) 181 A. 6 15, 120 Conn. 449. Appeals of Town of Hartford (1966) 218 A.2d Zoning beards,as a matter of ng a variance 540, 26 ConnSup. 260. B good practice, o members of should set forth in their record of a hearing the to vote at the It is desirable for zoning board of appeals to reasons actuating their decisions, though they were not state reasons for granting variance since if it are not legally bound to do so. St. Casimir !ere are does not court must search record to attempt Lithuanian Society v.Board of Zoning Appeals g to find basis for action taken, and if none is of Town of Windsor (1941) 10 ConnSup. 194. rden of show- found therein action of board cannot be up- s did not ac- held. Ward v.Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town The failure of a zoning board of appeals to th the issues of Hartford (1965) 215 A.2d 104, 153 Conn, state upon its records the reasons why it grant- ed the argu- 141. ed a variance, left the court no alternative, c hearing in upon an appeal from the action of the board, Igment at the Unless some statute specifically requires but to hold that the board's action was improp- :oning Bd.of finding of facts on which zoning board of er. Zingeser v.Zoning Board of Appeals,Hart- )85)493 A.2d appeals bases its action, such finding is not a ford (1942) 10 Conn-Sup. 339. prerequisite to legal action, though disclosure of board of of board's reasons in its minutes is highly 20. - Publication of board decisions board from I desirable. Saporiti v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals of Publication of notice of zoning board's deci- Town of Manchester (1951) 78 A.2d 741, 137 sion granting variance was not unconstitution- ng requested Conn. 478. id, at public al. Pergament Norwalk Corp. v. Kaimowitz fiber disqual- Where zoning board gave no reason for its (1985)496 A.2d 217,4 Conn.App.633,certifica- was absent, action in granting variance from zoning regu- tion denied 499 A.2d 60, 197 Conn. 813. i next day at lations, court, on appeal from board's order, Lessee of remainder of building in which h four of the could only by hearing the evidence determine liquor store was located was not entitled to of member what the facts were and assume that board had notice, other than by publication, of liquor ing, was un- those facts before it. Berkman v. Board of store's application for zoning variance to con- vas held as Appeals on Zoning of City of Bridgeport(1949) struct addition to building, where lessee was 35c(this sec- 64 A.2d 875, 135 Conn. 393. not party to such application. Pergament Nor- !on pleas by Failure of city board of zoning appeals to walk Corp.v.Kaimowitz(1985)496 A.2d 217,4 e sustained. find specifically facts on which it based its CoanApp• 633, certification denied 499 A.2d is of City of i order granting permission to extend store 60. 197 Conn. 813. 9 ConnSup. building in business zone into adjacent resi- An adequate notice for appeal purposes of a dence zone did not invalidate such order, decision of the zoning board of appeals approv- )f board of which made no change in zoning districts, so ing an application for a variance need not low reasons that board was under no duty to state its rea- expressly state every consideration that might ts decision, sons therefor. Bishop v. Board of Zoning Ap. be relevant to any party who might want to 129 §8-7 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING Note 20 Title 8 Ch. 124 appeal the board's decision, but need only pro- required information and, hence, was not"no- vide an adequate enough notice to insure a tice"from which 15-day appeal period set forth reasonable opportunity within the applicable in §. 8-7 Appeals to _ time constraints to obtain the information re- becti LO run notwithstanding claim that an objecting property owner could, in ex- quired to form an opinion whether or not to ercise of due diligence,have learned of precise appeal. Bridgeport Bowl-O-Rama, Inc. v. Zon- nature of decision and formed an opinion as to Regional ing Bd.of Appeals of City of Bridgeport(1985) whether to appeal decision within 15-day peri- (1979) 12 C, 487 A.2d 55�195 Conn. 276, on remand 491 od. Bridgeport Bowl-O-Rama v.Zoning Bd.of A.2d 436, pp. 68. Appeals of City of Bridgeport (1983) 467 A.2d Reference to an earlier notice of hearing in 126, 39 Conn-Sup. 523, set aside 487 A.2d 559, notice of decision by the zoning board of ap- 195 Conn. 276, on remand 491 A.2d 436, 4 Zoning an peals to approve defendant's application for a Conn.App. 68. CJ.S. Zon variance, stating as it did that a decision relat- 187 to i ing to specifically identified property adjacent Where Zoning Board of Appeals failed to to that occupied by plaintiff had been rendered publish its decision to grant variance in news- granted application conditionally, was suffi- Paper within ten days after rendering decision, 1. Noncom cient ovide adequate ning notice to insure plaintiff reasonable opportunitywith- Bd.nt of variance was of Appeals of Town oinvalid. Norw Hyatt (1972)311 The failur in applicable time constraints to obtain infor. A.2d 77, 163 Conn. 379. have a sten. mation required to form an opinion whether cause the ev or not to appeal. Bridgeport Bowl-o-Rama, 21• Appeal as requirement for judicial re- recording de Inc.v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals of City of Bridge- Wei' did not male port (1985) 487 A.2d 559, 195 Conn. 276, on This section which requires zoning board of granting zon: remand 491 A.2d 436, 4 Conn.App. 68. a of medical e appeals to hear an appeal from ruling of zon- however,the Purpose of requirement of this section that ing enforcement officer must be construed as notice of a decision of the zoning board of compelling board to render decision on appeal appeals be published is to give notice to inter. before party aggrieved b aggn y officer's ruling can § 8-7b. ested parties of the decision and to commence have access to courts. Palmieri v. Zoning Bd. the start of the 15-day appeal period. Bridge. of Appeals of Town of Westport (1975) 349 Wheneve port Bowl-O-Rama v.Zoning Bd. of Appeals of A.2d 731, 32 Conn.Sup. 625. applicatioi City of Bridgeport (1983) 467 A.2d 126. 39 within fivt Conn.Sup. 523, set aside 487 A.2d 559, 195 A trucking company which made applica- Conn. 276, on remand 491 A.2d 436, 4 Conn, tons to building inspector and board of build- board shal App. 68. ing commissioners to have change in zoning such munl did not make "elec- Notice which was given by the zoning board tion lof o remedies," butdeclaredd could abandon those time and } of appeals of its decision granting application proceedings and seek direct relief in the courts (1965, Feb. of adjoining owner for a variance from off. when its efforts failed, where there was no street parking regulations and which merely provision in city's charter, statutes, or zoning incorporated by reference prior notices of pub- regulations for an appeal from ruling of board lic hearing containing such information as lo- of building commissioners to board of zoning Amendments cation of property and general substance of appeals or to courts. National Transp. Co. v. 1983 Amen decision was defective for failure to contain Toquet (1938) 196 A. 344, 123 Conn. 468. ed applicatior § 8-7a. Evidence at hearings to be taken by stenographer or recorded Regional w The zoning commission and zoning board of appeals shall call in a compe- (1979) 12 Cor tent stenographer to take the evidence, or shall cause the evidence to be recorded by a sound-recording device, in each hearing before such commis- zoning ana CJS.Zonir sion or board in which the right of appeal lies to the superior court. (1959, P.A. 460, § 1; 1976, P.A. 76-436, § 290, eff. July 1, 1978.) § 8-7c. Any per: Historical Note commissio- Amendments title to whi 1976 Amendment. 1976, P.A.76-436,§ 290, application substituted reference to superior court for ref- such real p erence to court of common pleas_. (1971, P.A. 130 " 1SING, ETC. ZONING § 8-7c Title 8 Ch. 124 ce, was not "no- Cross References period set forth Appeals to superior court following exhaustion of administrative remedies, see § 4-183. istanding claim er could, in ex- trned of precise Law Review Commentaries in opinion as to Regional welfare analysis in zoning actions. iin 15-day peri- (1979) 12 Conn.LRev. 93. Zoning Bd.of 1983) 467 A.2d Library References 487 A.2d 559, Zoning and Planning e=359, 361. ►1 A.2d 436, 4 CJ.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 93, 95, 187 to 189. )eals failed to dance in news- Notes of Decisions ering decision, 1. Noncompliance able at option of aggrieved person instituting a lyatt v.Zoning The failure of zoningboard of a proper a alk(1972) 311 appeals to donPV. appeal t�of A of common pleas. Lon- have a stenographer take the evidence or to a Appeals of City of Bridge- cause the evidence to be recorded by a sound port (1963) 190 A.2d 486, 150 Conn. 411. V Judicial re. recording device as required by the zoning law Failure of the board to comply with the did not make void the action of the board in requirements of this section rendered the ac. granting zoning variance to allow construction lion of the board voidable at the option of the ping board of of medical office building in residence zone; plaintiffs. Wagner v.Zoning Board of Appeals ruling of zon- however,the failure did render the action void. of Town of Canton (1965) 153 Conn. 713. construed as ion on appeal is ruling can § 8-7b. Notice to contiguous municipalities of variance applications v. zoning Bd. Whenever a zoning board of appeals has before it for consideration an A (1975) 349 application for a variance in the use of ro e p p rty any portion of which lies made applica- within five hundred feet of a contiguous municipality within the state, such aard of build- board shall, at least one week prior to the hearing thereon, notify the clerk of ge in zoning such municipality, in writing, of the fact of such application and of the date, sake an"elec. time and place fixed by it for such hearing. randon those in the courts (1965, Feb.Sp.Sess., P.A. 54; 1983, P.A. 83-247.) €sere was no s, or zoning Historical Note Sing of board Amendments palities within the state and required the notice rd of zoning cansp. 1983 Amendment. 1983, P.A. 83-247, limit- to also specify the time and place for hearing. in. 468. v. ed application of section to contiguous munici- Law Review Commentaries recorded Regional welfare analysis in zoning actions. (1979) 12 Conn.LRev. 93. a cOmpe- Library References ace to be Zoning and Planning e-534. commis- CJ.S. Zoning and Land Planning§ 252. :or court. § 8-7c. Disclosure of beneficiaries of real property held in trust Any person who makes an application to a planning commission, zoning commission or zoning board of appeals pertaining to real property, the record title to which is held by a trustee of an undisclosed trust, shall file with said application a sworn statement disclosing the name of the equitable owner of such real property or the beneficiary of the trust. i (1971, P.A. 782.) i 131 +i MWKML a §8-7c ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING • Title 8 Ch. 124 Law Review Commentaries Regional welfare analysis in zoning actions. decision (1979) 12 Conn.L.Rev. 93. The pro,,- Library References extension Zoning and Planning 0=432, 533. (1971, P.A. CJ.S.Zoning and Land Planning1982, P.A. to 207, 251. §§ 198,204 § 8-7d. Hearings and decisions. Time limits. Day of receipt. Amendment Ame rewrote th (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, in all matters the date ofr wherein a formal petition, application, request or appeal must be submitted to board of api a zoning commission, planning and zoning commission or zoning board of 1978 Ame appeals under this chapter and a hearing is required on such petition, samended bs t t ng application, request or appeal, such hearing shall commence within sixty-five days after receipt of such petition, application, request or appeal and shall be extension"f, ing"the tota. completed within thirty days after such hearing commences. All decisions on such ezten such matters shall be rendered within s' provided", " ixty-five days after completion of such "double the" hearing. The petitioner or applicant may consent to one or more extensions by inserting " pecof any period specified in this subsection, provided the total extension of any "She"for such period shall not be for longer than the original period as specified in this subsection, or may withdraw such petition, application, request or appeal. plan"; amen (b)by addinc plan . . . U. (b) Whenever the approval of a site plan is the only requirement to be met and by subs or remaining to be met under the zoning regulations for a proposed building "for approva use or structure, a decision on an application for approval of such site plan fence of sut shall be rendered within sixty-five days after receipt of such site plan. The applicant may consent to one or more extensions of such period, provided the Regional H total period of any such extension or extensions shall not exceed two further (1979) 12 Co sixty-five-day periods, or may withdraw such plan. (c) For purposes of subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the day of receipt Zoning anc of a petition, application, request or appeal shall be the day of the next U.S. Zoni. regularly scheduled meeting of such commission or board, immediately 187 to 1s following the day of submission to such board or commission or its agent of such petition, application, request or appeal or thirty-five days after such Hearing 5 submission, whichever is sooner. If the commission or board does not Legislative ft maintain an office with regular office hours, the office of the clerk of the Site napp municipality shall act as the agent of such commission or board for the receipt of an Timeliness P y petition, application, request or appeal. Waiver 6 (d) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to any action initiated by any zoning or planning and zoning commission regarding adoption or change of any zoning regulation or boundary. L Legislativ (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, if an application involves Because a an activity regulated pursuant to sections 22a-36 to 22a-45, inclusive, and the use of�its di time for a decision by a zoning commission or planning and zoning commis- Imposed thirty-fifth rather than sion established pursuant to this section would elapse prior to the an day after a decision by the inland wetlands agency, the time Builders,Inc. 132 Period fora Town of Ease USING, ETC. ZONING Title 8 Ch. 124 §8--7d Note 2 decision shall be extended to thirty-five days after the decision of such agency. The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to apply to any extension consented to by an applicant or petitioner. (1971, P.A. 862, § 12, eff. Oct. 1, 1971; 1977, P.A. 77-450, § 4; 1978, P.A. 78-104, § 1; 1982, P.A. 82-81, § 1; 1987, P.A. 87-533, § 10, eff. July 1, 1987.) Historical Note fit' Amendments more extensions" for "extension" following 1977 Amendment. 1977, P.A. 77-450, § 4, "may consent to",and by substituting"the total rewrote the section, which formerly related to period of any such extension or extensions"for all matters the date of receipt of application by the zoning . "such extension" following "of such period, ;ubrnitted to board of appeals provided"; and amended subset. (c) by substi- ag board of 1978 Amendment. 1978, P.A. 78-104, § 1, tuting "day" for "date" following "this section, ch petition amended the third sentence of subsea (a) by the" and "appeal shall be the", by substituting p substituting "one or more extensions" for "an "day of submission to"for"official receipt by" in sixty-five extension"following"consent to", by substitut. following "immediately following the", by in- uid shall be ing'the total extension of any such period"for setting"or its agent"following"board or com- 'such extension" following "this subsection, mission", and by substituting"submission"for recisions on provided", by substituting "the original" for "official receipt" following "days after such". ion of such "double the" following "for longer than" and extensions by inserting "in this subsection," following 1982 Amendment. 1982, P.A. 82-81, § 1, in Sion of any "specified"; divided subset. (b) by substituting board. (ce)s not vidaed tha if office commission rsiion or " The" for "and the" following such site :fled in this plan'; amended the first sentence of subset. office hours, the office of the clerk of the or appeal. (b) by adding"Whenever the approval of a site municipality shall act as the agent of such plan * * * use or structure,"at the beginning, commission or board for the receipt of any = to be met and by substituting "such" for "a" following Petition, application, request or appeal. 3 buildin "for approval of"; amended the second sen. 1987 Amendment. 1987, P.A. 87-533, § 10, g, tence of subset. (b) by substituting "one or added subset. (e). i site plan Plan. The Law Review Commentaries ovided the Regional welfare analysis in zoning actions. vo further (1979) 12 Conn.LRev. 93. Library References of receipt Zoning and Planning a=359. the next C.I.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 93, 95, mediately 187 to 189. agent of Notes of Decisions fter such Hearing 5 Conn.App. 489, certification denied 513 A.2d does not Legislative function 1 698, 201 Conn. 804. rk of the Pending applicationspa ; Where zoning board is actin in Site plan a g legislative 1 for the Timeliness 2 capacity and lawfully exercising its broad dis- Waiver 6 cretion, an automatic approval of an applica- tion for newly proposed legislation,merely be- Iy to an cause of passage of time, would constitute an y unwarranted diminution of board's ability to �egarding function as a legislative body. Coastal Subur- 1. Legislative function ban Builders, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Because a change of zone falls within zoning 239,2oConn Town Ogg tcertifi certification denied513 involves commission's 1 and the legislative function and requires A.2d 698, 201 Conn. 804.use of its discretion, any time requirement commis- imposed upon commission must be directory 2. Timeliness irty_fifth rather than mandatory. Coastal Suburban Presumption of regularity in proceedings of Builders,Inc.v.Planning and Zoning Com'n of town planning and zoning commission was �d fora Town of East Haven (1984) 479 A.2d 1239, 2 rebutted by evidence that commission conduct- 133 9 ZO NN MG, PLANTN MG, HOUSIM, ETC. Noteto 2 2 ZON1INiG ed multiple hearings on plant's application for Conn.App. 489, certification denied 5 3ltt,,2d Ch. 124 special permit and site plan approval in viola- 698, 201 Conn, 804. mandated tit l F ion of its duty to conclude public hearing on proval of e, For purpose of determining whether land- deficiencies such application within 30 days. Frito-Lay, Inc.v.Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of owners, who sought approval of their site plan grounds for Killingly(1988) 538 A.2d 1039, 206 Conn. 554. application, were entitled to extraordinary timely consic Where town planning and zoning commis- remedy of mandamus, Planning and zoning 510 A.2d 135 commission was under positive duty to decide denied 513 A sion failed to conclude public hearing on appli- landowners' application within 65 days of its cation for special permit within 30-1ay time receipt and landowners had a "clear legal site,plan p Period mandated by this section, but did ren- right" to performance of commission's obli- P PF der its decision denying application within 65 gation under§ 8-7d, since moratorium on ap. which tcie�er days of hearing, as properly extended, as re- Proval of such applications was inapplicable to ty pr quired by this section, automatic approval of landowners' Pend' to rule on aF uig application. Harlow v. quest to table application because of commission's violation Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of West- of this section was not required, and appropri- Port (1984) 479 A-2d 808, 194 Conn. 187. comments. t ate remedy was remand to commission for Even if § 8-3 providing that a Com'n of Cite new hearing in accordance with law. Frito- approval decision a Conn App. 55c � site plan shall be presumed��the decision y, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of to deny or m Sixty-five-dz Town of Killingly 1988) 538 A.2d 1039, 206 were is rendered within specified ring commis: g y ( time period were not incorporated Conn, 554. tps of by refer- disapprove sit once into the time limitations of the Coastal City planning commission had no power to Management Act,§ 22a-90 et and retail cet seqextend statutoryProvision, which is incorporated the statutory and pets h_ period within which it was P rporated into the Act required to rule on application for approval of and which Provides that zoning board must to rem on da site plan, University Realty, Inc. v. Planning ender a decision within 65 days,imposes meeting of the Com'n of City of Meriden(1985)490 A.2d 96,3 constraints that are mandatory,y time sion ofnt's sa in light of pro- applicant's su Conn.App. 556. vision in such statute that the applicant may u on request c Where zoning board is engaged in an admin- consent to one or more extensions of such time P istrative function and need only determine Period' Vartuli v Sotire (1984) 472 A.2d 336, ty, Inc. v. Plar whether applicant has met specific standards 192 Conn' 353. (1985) 490 A.2. set forth in regulations,imposition of automat- Property owners who had submitted a site Expiration c is approval upon board's failure to act within Plan Pursuant to the Coastal urn did not r time prescribed b § 22a-90 et Management Act, challenging wva ould y § 8-7d is reasonable and �•.which plan was not approved veloper would rational. Coastal Suburban Builders, Inc. v. or denied within 65 days of the date it was Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of East received by zoning board, could zoning its ap mmi mandamus action ill charm a zoning commis Haven (1984) 479 A.2d 1239, 2 Conn.App. 489, against city official charged plication woudc certification denied 513 A.2d 698, 201 Conn, with responsibility for issuing zoning permits 804. for construction projects that comply with zon- ter of law pars . ing and coastal management regulations, not- oper s propem Trial court did not err in determining that withstanding a pendingzoning a proposed office developers were not entitled to automatic followed board's subsequent g PPS where after 65-day pe: change of zone and their request for rezone plan. Vartuli v. Sotr (1984) 472 oA.2de336, tion of morator from single-family to multiple-family dwelling 192 Conn, 353. have its applir due to failure of planning and zoning commis- with zoning re sion to take any action on request within time 3. Site plan approval when decision Provided by zoning regulation and § 8-7d, nold Bernhard P Citizen comments ab pout noise, odor, traffic Zoning Com'n c since any time requirement imposed u commission as to its 1 pore Citizen and lack of lant's credibilitywere A.2d 801, 194 C egislative function of all matters which,in practical terms,addressed determining change of zone request would be plant's application for special Permit and site Zoning boarc directory rather than mandatory. Coastal Sub- p approval on merits and,even if what was sion on coastal urban Builders, Inc. v. Planning and Zoninglam said about Plants existing operations was with- days after apple Com'n of Town of East Haven (1984)479 A.2d in personal knowledge of commission mem- as a matter of h 1239,2 Conn.App.489,certification denied 513 bers, allowing such comments after public Act § 22a-90 e- A.2d 698, 201 Conn. 804. hearing had been formally closed could not be Shapero v. Zor. Decisions of the zoning commission are valid justified on basis that information was com- (1984) 472 A.2d where they are concerned with application for mon knowledge in community and immaterial Trustee's buil, changes of zone and amendments to zoning to application. Frito-Lay,Inc.v.Planning and zoning regulatic regulations even where decisions have not Zoning Com'n of Town of Killingly(1988) 538 but before it wa been made in accordance with strict timetable A•2d 1039, 206 Conn. 554. ings clause, wh prescribed by § 8-7d. Coastal Suburban Zoning commission's failure to act on pro. zoningr Builders,Inc.v.Planning and Zoning Com'n of eg per- Town of East Haven (198 n 479 A.2d 1239, 2 Pools site plan, which was inseparable from for which a per- Builders, Permit application, within statutorily was still in effec 134 than amended 5 ;ING, ETC. ZONING Title 8 Ch. 124 § 8-7d lied 513 A.2d Note 5 mandated time period, resulted in deemed ap- that onlybuildings for which a proval of entire submission, thougheen permit had vhether land- e exempt. Shapero v.Zoning deficiencies in application may have been Bd. of granted iit�f Srtamfo d (1984) 472 A.2d 345, :heir site plan grounds for denial of application had it been 192 Conn. 367. extraordinary timely considered. Carr v. WooIwich (1986) and zoning 510 A.2d 1358, 7 Conn.App. 684, certification Since plaintiffs' site plan application pursu- uty to decide denied 513 A.2d 698, 210 Conn. 804. ant to he Coastal Management Act was 5 days of its Developer's request to table application for deemed approved by law 65 days after zoning "clear legal site plan a boards receipt of revised application, the zon- ission's obli- P approval did not establish his con- ing board had no authority to deny the applica- srium on a sent to extend statutory 65-day-period within lion subsequent to the 65-da applicable to which city planning commission was required V. Sotire (1984) 472 A.2d 336 92 Conn. 53 to rule on application, particularly where m Harlow v. quest to table was in response to commission's Provisions of § 8-7d making approval of a Wn of West- comments. University Realty, Inc,v,planning coastal development plan mandatoryu pon fail- a. 187. Coin n of City of Meriden(1985)490 A.2d 96 3 ure of zoning board to disapprove e pp ica- rproval of a Conn.App. 556. tion within specified time period do not merely the decision Sixty-five-day make mandatory immediate consideration of iiii specified tY Y Period within which city plan. the application by he board, Wing commission was required to approve or regardless of A by refer- disapprove site plan for proposed as when final decision on such application is the Coastal and retail center, where all other station made; raker, approval of the application is he statutory and permits had already been obtained, automatic. Vartuli v. Sotire (1984) 472 A.2d nto the Act to run on de. of next 336, 192 Conn. 353. Board must Y regularly scheduled meeting of the commission following submis- 4. Pending applications 3poses time sion of application,and did not start over upon ight of pro- applicant's submission of revised site plan Upon determination that municipal zoning dicant may upon request of commission. University Real- moratorium was inapplicable to landowners' !£such time ty, Inc. v. Planning Com'n of City of Meriden site plan application, trial court did not err in Z A2d 336, (1985) 490 A.2d 96. 3 Conn.App. 556. ordering Planning and zoning commission to Expiration of nine-month zoning moratori- lions decide application t on in accordance app with application, since'e fitted a site um did not render moot developer's a anent Act, PPS zoning reclassification which would have made challenging validity of moratorium, since de. landowners' site plan impermissible were not ti approved veloper would have been entitled to decision enacted until after expiration of 65�a late it was on its application, which was Y Period aaintain a pending before following receipt of application within which zoning commission, within 65 days or the ap. commission was required to take action. Har- ai charged plication would have been approved as a mat- low V.Planning rg permits ter of law pursuant to§ 8-7d,and since devel- and Zoning Com n of Town of -with zon- oper's pro Westport (1984 lions, not- ) 479 A.2d 808. 194 Conn. 187. property was not rezoned to prohibit proposed office building until several months In Proceeding seeking to have municipal eal which after 65-day period lapsed; therefore,invalida- zoning moratorium declared invalid, expira- af the site tion of moratorium would entitle developer to tion of such moratorium did not deprive trial A.2d 336, have its application considered in accordance cow of authority to proceed, since plaintiff with zoning regulations that were in effect landowners filed their site plan application be- when decision should have been made. Ar- fore effective date of moratorium,giving them nold Bernhard and Co., Inc. v. Planning and right to have their application considered on a, traffic Zoning Com'n of Town of Westport(1984)479 its merits apart from moratorium if, for any ility were A.2d 801, 194 Conn. 152. reason, application was not effected by enact- iddressed Zoning board which failed to render deci- ment of moratorium; landowner's entitlement and site sion on coastal site plan application within 65 under § 8-7d to timely action on application what was days after application was filed was required would not be defeated by municipal interposi- was with- d a matter of law by the Coastal Management tion of an invalid or inapplicable moratorium. In mem- Act § after o et to a a8 Harlow v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of ld not blic be Shapero v. Zoning. of approve d Town 18 Westport (1984) 479 A.2d 808, 194 vas coin- (1984) 472 A.2d 345, 192 Conn. 367. COW' 187. imaterial Trustee's building plan was exempt from 5- Hearing sing and zoning regulation enacted after plan was filed Plant did not waive its right to object to 988) 538 I but before it was approved, since original sav- citizen comments made on its application for ings clause, which provided that changes in special use permit and site plan approval after zoning regulations did not apply to buildings public hearing had been formally closed by on pro- for which a permit had been filed or file from was still in effect when plan was filed, rather entitledof oitre failure n ch chairman's state in ments was that ahitorily than amended savings clause which provided such remarks would not be considered by com- I 135 §8-7d ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONM Note 5 Title 8 Ch. 124 mission and plant fairly viewed meeting as 1358,7 Conn.App.684,certification denied 513 8-7, as "hearing" beyond permissible 30-day limit for A.2d 698, 201 Conn. 804. conclusion of hearing on its application. Fri- district to-Lay, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of 6. Waiver returna Town of Killingly (1988) 538 A.2d 1039, 206 Plant did not waive its opportunity to rebut actions Conn. 554. any new submissions made at planning and Town planning and zoning commission con- zoning meeting after formal public hearing on (b) N ducted multiple public hearings, without au- its application for special use permit had been thereof thority, on plant's application for special per- closed, as it was entitled to rely on chairman's board, mit and site plan approval when, after declar- statements that new submissions would not be ing public hearing closed, commission permit- considered. Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Planning and municip ted citizens to speak to merits of plant's pro- Zoning Com'n of Town of Killingly(1988) 538 the pm'I posal during three subsequent commission A.2d 1039, 206 Conn. 554. shall nc meetings. Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Killingly(1988) 538 Landowner's action in obtaining extension appeals g waiver of its right require A.2d 1034, 206 Conn. 554. wasght to uire town plan.lan- Stay prc ning and zoning commission to make decision Statute establishing general requirement that on its application for special permit and site such apj zoning commission act upon zoning applica- plan approval within 65 days after completion cause sh tions within specified time period was not ap- of hearing. Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Planning and plicable to action for which hearing was not Zoning Com'n of Town of Killingly(1988) 538 (C) Th required. Carr v. Woolwich (1986) 510 A.2d A.2d 1039, 206 Conn. 554. appellan recognize § 8-7e. Notice to adjoining municipalities of applications or requests comply The zoning board of appeals of any municipality shall notify the clerk of required recor any adjoining municipality of the pendency of any application or request the trans concerning any project on any site in which: (1) Any portion of the property with sect affected by a decision of such zoning board of appeals is within five hundred feet of the boundary of the adjoining municipality, (2) a significant portion of cis Thy decis the trac to the completed project on the site will use streets within the ion, ffi adjoining municipality to enter or exit the site; (3) a significant portion of the defendar. sewer or water drainage from the project on the site will flow through and motion tc significantly impact the drainage or sewerage system within the adjoining appellant municipality; or (4) water run-off from the improved site will impact streets The cour. or other municipal or private property within the adjoining municipality. on such i Such notice shall be made by registered mail and shall be mailed within seven each sucl days of the date of receipt of the application or request. No hearing may be within se, conducted on any application or request unless the adjoining municipality has (e) The received the notice required under this section. Such adjoining municipality shall revi may, through a representative, appear and be heard at any hearing on any appeal to such application or request. case retu (1987, P.A. 87-307, § 2.) transcript presented § 8-8. Appeal from board to court. Review b it y a appeal,ppellate court equitable (a) Any person or persons severally or jointly aggrieved by any decision of appoint a said board, or any person owning land which abuts or is within a radius of the same ' one hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in any decision of said which rei board, or any officer, department, board or bureau of any municipality, determina charged with the enforcement of any order, requirement or decision of said (f) The board, may, within fifteen days from the date when notice of such decision after a he was published in a newspaper pursuant to the provisions of section 8-3 or modify or 136 J USING, ETC. ZONING Title 8 Ch. 124 §$-8 ation denied 513 8-7, as the case may be, take an appeal to the superior court for the judicial district in which such municipality is located, which appeal shall be made returnable to said court in the same manner as that prescribed for civil )rtunity to rebut actions brought to said court. :t planning and (b) Notice of such appeal shall be given by leaving a true and attested copy ibiic hearing on pp )ermit had been thereof with, or at the usual place of abode of, the chairman or clerk of said v on chairman's board, and by serving a true and attested copy upon the clerk of the is would t be municipality, provided service upon the clerk of the municipality shall be for . Planningand ngly(1988) 538 the purpose of providing additional notice of such appeal to said board and shall not thereby make such clerk a necessary party to such appear. The ning extension appeal shall state the reasons up and shall not on which it has been predicated ,ire town plan- stay proceedings upon the decision make decision appealed from, but the court to which such a lermit and site ppeal is returnable may, on application, on notice to the board and on ter completion cause shown, grant a restraining order. Planning and ugly(1988) 538 (c) The authority issuing a citation in such appeal shall take from the appellant, unless such appellant is an official of the municipality, a bond or recognizance to said board, with surety, to prosecute such appeal to effect and iir requests comply with the orders and decrees of the court. Said board shall be he clerk of required to return either the original papers acted upon by it and constituting the record of the case appealed from, or certified copies thereof and a copy of ve property request the transcript of the stenographic or sound recording prepared in accordance ve hundred with section 8-7a. portion of (d) The court, upon the motion of the person who applied for the board's within the decision, shall make such person a party defendant in the appeal. -tion of the defendant may, at any time after the return date of such appeal, make a Trough and motion to dismiss the appeal. At the hearing on such motion to dismiss, each adjoining appellant shall have the burden of proving his standing to bring the appeal. xact streets The court may, upon the record, grant or deny the motion. The courts order micipality. on such motion shall be a final judgment for the purpose of the appeal as to thin seven each such defendant. No appeal may be taken from any such order except ag may be within seven days of the entry of such order. ipality has (e) The court, upon an appeal taken under subsection (a) of this section, snicipality shall review the proceedings of said board and shall allow an to such ig on any appeal to introduce evidence in addition to the contents of the eco d of the case returned by said board if the record does not contain a complete transcript of the entire proceedings before said board, including all evidence I presented to it, pursuant to section 8-7a, or if, upon the hearing upon such i appeal, it appears to the court that additional testimony is necessary for the equitable disposition of the appeal. The court may take such evidence or ecision of appoint a referee or committee to take such evidence as it directs and report radius of the same to the court, with his or its findings of facts and conclusions of law, rn of said which report shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the licipality, determination of the court shall be made. Fn of said (f) The court, upon an appeal taken under subsection (a) of this section and decision after a hearing thereon, may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly,section may ►n 8-3 or modify or revise the decision appealed from. Costs shall be allowed against 137 a • §8-8 ZONING, PLANNING, HOUSING, ETC. ZONING Title 8 Ch. 124 said board if the decision appealed from is reversed, affirmed in part, 1983 Ame: modified or revised. Appeals from decisions of said board shall be privileged 83lat § 13, cases to be heard by the court, unless cause is shown to the contrary, colate tour after the return day as is practicable. as soon court throng once to chap (g) There shall be no right to further review except to the appellate court b design sign Amer certification for review, upon the vote of two judges of the appellate court so designated 0t. appellate� to certify and under such other rules as the judges of the a deli g court subset. (b), establish. The procedure on such appeal to the appellate court shall, except designate as as otherwise provided herein, be in accordance with the procedures provided sub sec. (e),ar by rule or law for the appeal of judgments rendered by the superior court for "such" p: unless modified by rule of the judges of the appellate court. "taken under (h) No appeal taken under subsection (a) of this section shall be withdrawn designated t fences as sub and no settlement between the parties to any such appeal shall be effective such", and unless and until a hearing has been held before the superior court and such (a) of this s court has approved such proposed withdrawal or settlement. and twelfth s< ed subset. (h) (1949 Rev., § 844; 1951,Supp. § 160b; 1955, Supp. § 379d; 1959, P.A. 460, § 2; 1963, 1985 Amenc P.A. 45; 1965, Feb.Sp. Sess., P.A. 622, § 3; 1967, P.A. 348; 1967, P.A. 7 60 1971, P.A. subset. (b) re 870, § 9, off. Sept. 1, 1971; 1974, P.A. 74-183, § 179, off. Dec. 31, 1974; 1976 P.A. chairman or c 76-436, § 158, eff.July 1, 1978; 1977, P.A. 77-470; 1978, P.A. 78-280, § 1, eff.July 1, clerk of the 1978; 1981, P.A. 81-165; 1983,June Sp.Sess., P.A. 83-29, § 13, off.July 1, 1983; 1984, provision for P.A. 84-227, § 1; 1985, P.A. 85-284, § 3, eff. Oct. 1, 1985; 1986, P.A. 86-236, § 2, of.. Oct. 1, 1986; 1988, P.A. 88-79, § 1, eff. April 20, 1988.) Administrative Appeals to sup Historical Note Aviation coma Amendments 1967, P.A. 712, allowed fora Committees, at 1959 Amendment. 1959,P.A.460,§ 2,delet. person owning land which abuts tthesland in Superior coun ed provision allowing introduction of evidence volved in any decision of the board. r Superior c moan in addition to the record if the record does not 1971 Amendment. 1971, P.A. 870, § 9, add- Surety compar contain a steno Waterways, nit graphic report or a complete ed provisions relating to review by the su- section, .mechanical recording of the entire proceedings creme court. before the board, including all evidence presented to it. 1974 Amendment. 1974,P.A.74-183,insert. ed reference to judicial district as alternative to 1963 Amendment. 1963, P.A. 45, allowed court of common pleas of the county. Administratic for introduction of evidence in addition to 1976 Amendment. 1976,P.A. 76-436,§ 158, Safety Code. record if the record does not contain a tom- substituted reference to superior court for ref- Connecticut plete transcript of the entire proceedings be- erence to the court of common pleas. Conn.Bar J. 45_ fore the board including all evidence presented Courts and to it pursuant to § 8-7a. 1977 Amendment. 1977,P.A.77-470,substi- (1979) 11 Conn tuted provision allowing appeal by any person Land use re 1%5 Amendment. 1965, Feb.Sp.Sess., P.A. owning land which abuts or is within a radius 622, § 3, changed the time for taking appeal of 100 feet of an 1134. from within 15 days from the date such deci- in any decision ofthe nbo de for Provision nvolved Moving the £ sion was rendered to within 15 days from the allowing appeal by any person owningland J. and John E date when notice of such decision was publish- which abuts an J. 431. ed in a newspaper pursuant to§ 8-3 or§ 8-7, in any decision of the portion the land involved Municipal z, as the case may be. 1978 Amendment. 1978, P.A. 78-280 1 (1951) 25 Conn. 1%7 Amendments. 1%7, P.A. 348, substi- provided for change of terms from"coup § ' Notice defectr toted provision allowing costs against the "county or judicial district" to "judicial d G. Bartlett (198. board if the decision appealed from is re- trict"• for versed,waffirme in part,costs or revised 1981 Amendment. 1981, P.A. 81-165, pro. Zoning and P' P wing against the board vided for service of a true and attested copy of only if the board has acted in bad faith or notice of appeal upon the clerk of the music. Cis.Wining malice. pity Appeal l from € 138 of location rSMG, ETC. Z011 MG Title 8 Ch. 124 §8-8 led in part, 1993 Amendment. 1983,June Sp.Bess., P.A. the chairman or clerk of the board or to the )e Privileged 83-29, § 13, substituted references to the ap clerk of the municipality. g pellate court for references to the supreme may, as soon court throughout the section and deleted refer- 1986 Amendment. 1986, P.A. 86-236, § 2, in subsea (c) included ence to chapter 902. required � transcript in materials 1984 Amendtaeat. 1984, P.A. 84-.227, § 11 88 dm� 1988, P-A. 88-79, § 1, in ate court by designated the first sentence as subset. (a), subset. (b), inserted proviso ate court so designated the second and third sentences as notice of a clerk shall that servtci of ellate court subset. (b). designated the fourth and fifth notice and shall not there y make be a nec- hall, except sentences as subset. (c), inserted subset. (d), essary party to the appeal. designated the sixth and seventh sentences as es provided subset. (e), and in subset. (e), substituted"an" Effective Dates 'erior court for "such" preceding "appeal" , and inserted 1971 Act. 1971, P.A. 870, § 131, provided: "taken under subsection (a) of this section"; 'This act shall take effect September 1, 1971, designated the eighth, ninth and tenth sen- except that any court before which a case is withdrawn tences as subset. (f), and substituted "an" for pen din8 on said date shall retain jurisdiction of le effectivehich such", and inserted "taken under subsection such case, provided matters so(a) of this section"; designated the eleventh are transferrable from the supeeriodr couring t to t and such and twelfth sentences as subset. (g); and add. the court of common pleas in accordance with ed subset. (h). the provisions of subsection 1985 Amendment. 1985,P.A.85-284,§ 3,in this act may be so transferred.- section 14 of i § 2; 1 subsb 1971, P..AA.. et. ( ) required notice of appeal to the Derivation: 1976, P.A. chairman or clerk of the board and also to the 1925, P.A.ch. 242, §§ 11 to 15. eff.Jul Y 1 clerk of the municipality, in lieu of former . • provision for such notice o 1930, Rev., § 429 f appeal to either 1941,Rupp. § 50f. M3; 1984, Ik§ 2, eff. Cross References Administrative appeals to appellate court, see§ 51-197b. Appeals to superior court following exhaustion of administrative remedies, see § 4-183. Aviation commission, appeal by municipality aggrieved by action of, see § 15-95. Committees, auditors and referees, generally, see §§ 52-425 to 52-434. eds by any Stenographer's transcript part of official record the land in- Superior court,generally, see see§ 52-161. ck. § 51-164s et seq. Surety company bond acceptable on appeal, see§ 52-189. IX§ 9, add- Waterways,municipalities'power to prohibit obstructio by the su- section, see§ 7-147. as,appeal from decision governed by this -M.insert- Law Review Eezflative to Commentaries ty= Administration of Connecticut State Fire Planning and Zoning Law, 1981. Lawrence Safety Code. (1978) 10 Conn.L.Rev. 1016. P. Weisman and Ellen B. Lubell (1982) 56 'f .§ 158, Connecticut law of zoning. art for ref- Conn-Bar J. 453. g (1967) 41 Conn. Bar J. 148. M. Courts and legislatures. Robert Satter Power of Connecticut legislature over courts. substi- (1979) 11 Conn.LRev. 230. John A. Cornell (1943) 17 Conn.B.J. 123. OW Person Land use regulation. (1980) 89 Yale L.J. Procedural requirements for zoning. A a radius 1134. (1953) d igvolved Moving the Supreme Court. Robert W. 27 Conn.BJ. 243. Pr©msion len and John E. Donnelly (1975) 49 Conn, Recent developments in Connecticut zoning "fling land J. 431. law. (1957) 31 Conn.BJ. 289. L;involved Municipal zoninglaw in Regional welfare analysis in zoning actions. Connecticut. (1951) 25 Conn.BJ. 162. (1979) 12 Conn.LRev. 93. ' ' § 1� Notice defects in zoning actions. Kenneth Zoning Minty"or G. Bartlett (1985) 6 Bridgeport LRev. 227. necticu (1971) 45 Co and the nonconforming arn.Jl 427. m Con.dis- ' Library References 40; pro- Zoning and Planning 0-561 et seq. copy of U.S. Zoning and Land Planning§ 265. Book Ann., 2d, Vol. 2, Kaye and e munici- Appeal from grant of certificate of approval Effron, Form 204.7. of location of gasoline station, see Conn. I139 vai .aivv FAA 16:10 rAA ODUD440ZUZ Fenny Botticello et al 1@ 002 Penny/Botticello O'Brien&Higgins Pc ATTORNEYS AT LAW September 29, 2000 Marjorie Anthony, Chairperson South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Appl. #2475-00-Gardner L. Chapman Stephen T.Penny Dear Madam Chairperson: Barry W.Botticello This letter will confirm our earlier telephone conversation,in which I reported to you that the Town's and Applicant's attorneys are working on an amicable resolution of the above- Kevin M.O'Brien referenced appeal from a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer,and appear to be close to an understanding. Accordingly,I have recommended to you that it would be a mistake for lames M.Higgins,Ir: me,given this circumstance,to render an opinion to the Zoning Board which would make it more difficult for one side or the other to come to terms in this matter. The Town Attorney will be reporting the substance of these discussions to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday night. Thereafter,if an agreement has been reached,I will A present it to the Board on Thursday at your meeting. If there is no such agreement,then I will, if directed by you, give my opinion to the Board on the law in this matter at the Thursday meeting. I trust that the other Board members will agree that we are pursuing the proper course in delaying my opinion so as to assist in the process of achieving an amicable resolution. Very truly yours, Stephen T.Penny STP:rfk Enc. 11Smal\ho=\RachaellWORKEETTERS\STP\south windaor zba letter 202 West Center Street Manchester, Connecticut 06040 PHONE 860.646.3500 FAX 860.643.6292 WEBSrM www.manchesterattorneys.com