Diamond 67, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission
127 Conn. App. 634
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Mandamus action between Diamond 67, LLC (plaintiff), Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (intervenor/initial plaintiff), and Vernon Planning & Zoning Commission (defendant) regarding site plan approval and related permits.
- Environmental intervenor Montigny sought intervention under General Statutes § 22a-19(a);Montigny previously denied intervention in mandamus action but allowed in related administrative appeal.
- Diamond 67 and defendant settled the mandamus action; Montigny challenged remand-based hearing and settlement as environmental issues were addressed.
- This court vacated and remanded to grant Montigny intervention and conduct a § 8-8(n) hearing on environmental impacts before judgment.
- On remand, the trial court granted Montigny intervenor status, conducted a § 8-8(n) hearing, and approved the settlement without Montigny’s consent; Montigny appeals."
- Montigny contends lack of notice, improper interpretation of remand, and lack of consent to settlement; court upholds judgment approving settlement.
- Court finds Montigny had standing and that the remand order contemplated a § 8-8(n) hearing compliant with environmental review; court affirms settlement approval.
- Court notes the remand order required a hearing to review the settlement with Montigny able to participate on environmental issues; Montigny did not present environmental evidence at the hearing.
- Conclusion: Affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montigny has standing to appeal procedural aspects. | Montigny lacks standing as environmental intervenor. | Montigny cannot raise procedural issues or challenge a stipulated judgment. | Montigny has standing to pursue procedural challenges. |
| Whether the settlement judgment can be reviewed given Montigny’s lack of consent. | Settlement should be reviewable as it addressed the administrative appeal. | A stipulated judgment requires consent; Montigny did not consent. | Settlement judgment reviewable; Montigny abdicated environmental issues. |
| Whether the court properly denied a continuance given notice issues. | Court failed to provide notice, warranting continuance. | Remand order and notice were adequate; counsel appeared prepared. | No abuse of discretion; continuance denied. |
| Whether the remand order was misinterpreted regarding § 8-8(n) proceedings. | Remand required hearing in administrative context. | Hearing compliant with § 8-8(n) in mandamus action; remand clear. | Remand interpreted correctly; hearing complied with § 8-8(n). |
Key Cases Cited
- Pond View, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 288 Conn. 143 (2008) (standing for environmental intervenors when environmental issues not raised)
- Sendak v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 7 Conn.App. 238 (1986) (settlement appeals and third-party standing concerns)
- Brookridge District Assn. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 607 (2002) (settlement hearings; lack of subject matter jurisdiction when settled before hearing)
- Willimantic Car Wash, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 247 Conn. 732 (1999) (purpose and protections of § 8-8(n) hearings)
- D'Eramo v. Smith, 273 Conn. 610 (2005) (standing and jurisdiction principles underpinning review)