Villages, LLC v. Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission
149 Conn. App. 448
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Villages, LLC sought a special use permit and an open space subdivision on 64 acres in Enfield (R-44).
- Public hearings were held July–October 2009; the commission denied both applications on October 15, 2009.
- Plaintiff alleged bias and improper ex parte communications by Commissioner Longhi, who was friends with plaintiff’s counsel’s associate, Tallarita.
- Trial court found Longhi biased and involved in ex parte communications with Meade; it sustained plaintiff’s appeals and remanded for further hearings.
- On appeal, the court upheld the trial court’s bias and ex parte findings, rejected waiver defenses, and affirmed remand for new proceedings.
- The court remanded with instructions that Longhi should not participate and that others refrain from considering past comments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of bias claim due to pre-hearing knowledge | Villages argues waiver did not bar specific bias evidence | Commission asserts Moraski waives bias claims raised late | Waiver applicable to general bias; exception for specific bias to Tallarita-fate evidence allowed |
| Ex parte communication with Meade | Longhi's post-hearing talk with Meade violated due process | Commission contends harmless error | Ex parte communication occurred; burden shifted to show harmlessness; not shown |
| Impact of bias on fair hearing | Bias compromised impartial deliberations and votes | Record supports commission’s decision despite bias | Bias deprived plaintiff of a fair hearing; remand appropriate |
| Appellate standard and evidentiary support | Trial court findings were supported by testimony and transcripts | Court overstepped or misapplied standards | Findings not clearly erroneous; deference given to trial court credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers & Funeral Directors, 291 Conn. 242 (Conn. 2009) (waiver rule; raise bias promptly or lose claim; specific bias exception exists)
- Clisham v. Board of Police Commissioners, 223 Conn. 356 (Conn. 1992) (presumption of no bias; need concrete evidence to overcome; timely challenge required)
- Norooz v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 26 Conn. App. 564 (Conn. App. 1992) (ex parte communications disallowed; no unilateral information use by agency)
- Daniel v. Zoning Commission, 35 Conn. App. 594 (Conn. App. 1994) (burden shift to show harmlessness after plaintiff proves ex parte communication)
- K Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 285 Conn. 381 (Conn. 2008) (standard for substantial evidence review; credibility remains with agency)