close of the public hearing in Connecticut

1999Pizzola, supra. Blinkoffs claim that the staff report received after the close of the public hearing was improper is erroneous and cannot be the basis to sustain her appeal.

1991Unlike the present case, both Pizzola v. Planning Zoning Commission, 167 Conn. 202 (1974) and Wasicki v. Zoning Board, 163 Conn. 166 (1972) involve the submission of additional testimony and evidence after the close of the public hearing.

1992Blaker v. Planning Zoning Commission, 212 Conn. 471 , 478 (1989); Pizzola v. Planning Zoning Commission, 167 Conn. 202 (1974.

1991Plaintiff further asserts in his brief, page 21, that the prejudice to him in this matter is the same prejudice demonstrated by the plaintiff in Blaker v. PZC, 212 Conn. 471 , 478 (1989), as he has a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, and was denied the opportunity to rebut important information submitted, ex parte, by the applicant following the close of the public hearing, and prior to final approval of the modified subdivision plan.

1995The Commission argues that Obeda's report did not include, nor was based, on "any fact or evidence that was not previously presented at the public hearing in the matter." Norooz v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 26 Conn. App. 564 , 573-74 , 602 A.2d 613 (1992). "[T]he Commission may rely on the independent work of its staff and consultants following the close of the public hearing." Lenart v. City of New Haven, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Docket No. 35 14 11 (February 18, 1994, Booth, J.).

1995The Commission argues that Obeda's report did not include, nor was based, on "any fact or evidence that was not previously presented at the public hearing in the matter." Norooz v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 26 Conn. App. 564 , 573-74 , 602 A.2d 613 (1992). "[T]he Commission may rely on the independent work of its staff and consultants following the close of the public hearing." Lenart v. City of New Haven, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Docket No. 35 14 11 (February 18, 1994, Booth, J.).

2001In Feinson v. Conservation Commission , 180 Conn. 421 (1980), a commission member investigated highly technical information on his own and reported his findings to the commission, without extending to the applicant the opportunity to respond.

1999The situation is quite different from that found in Pizzola v. Planning Zoning Commission , supra, 167 Conn. 208 , where the ex parte information was supplied by a party to the controversy, and in Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Planning Zoning Commission , 206 Conn. 554 (1988), where the general public was allowed to comment after the close of the public hearing.

1994Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning Planning Commission , 161 Conn. 182 , 185 , 286 A.2d 299 (1971).

1994Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning Planning Commission , 161 Conn. 182 , 185 , 286 A.2d 299 (1971).

1993In addressing the issue of whether the opponents of a zoning change were prejudiced by an ex parte communication, the court must consider the following: whether additional evidence pertinent to the application was requested after the close of the public hearing; Kyser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 236 , 251-52 , 230 A.2d 595 (1967); whether "the information requested by the commission was within the scope of the [matters] presented at the public hearing. . . ;" Gardiner v. Conservation Commission, 222 Conn. 98 , 103 , 608 A.2d 672 (1992); and whether the ex parte communication was from

1993In addressing the issue of whether the opponents of a zoning change were prejudiced by an ex parte communication, the court must consider the following: whether additional evidence pertinent to the application was requested after the close of the public hearing; Kyser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 236 , 251-52 , 230 A.2d 595 (1967); whether "the information requested by the commission was within the scope of the [matters] presented at the public hearing. . . ;" Gardiner v. Conservation Commission, 222 Conn. 98 , 103 , 608 A.2d 672 (1992); and whether the ex parte communication was from

1993In addressing the issue of whether the opponents of a zoning change were prejudiced by an ex parte communication, the court must consider the following: whether additional evidence pertinent to the application was requested after the close of the public hearing; Kyser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 236 , 251-52 , 230 A.2d 595 (1967); whether "the information requested by the commission was within the scope of the [matters] presented at the public hearing. . . ;" Gardiner v. Conservation Commission, 222 Conn. 98 , 103 , 608 A.2d 672 (1992); and whether the ex parte communication was from

1993In addressing the issue of whether the opponents of a zoning change were prejudiced by an ex parte communication, the court must consider the following: whether additional evidence pertinent to the application was requested after the close of the public hearing; Kyser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 236 , 251-52 , 230 A.2d 595 (1967); whether "the information requested by the commission was within the scope of the [matters] presented at the public hearing. . . ;" Gardiner v. Conservation Commission, 222 Conn. 98 , 103 , 608 A.2d 672 (1992); and whether the ex parte communication was from

1993In addressing the issue of whether the opponents of a zoning change were prejudiced by an ex parte communication, the court must consider the following: whether additional evidence pertinent to the application was requested after the close of the public hearing; Kyser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 236 , 251-52 , 230 A.2d 595 (1967); whether "the information requested by the commission was within the scope of the [matters] presented at the public hearing. . . ;" Gardiner v. Conservation Commission, 222 Conn. 98 , 103 , 608 A.2d 672 (1992); and whether the ex parte communication was from

1993In addressing the issue of whether the opponents of a zoning change were prejudiced by an ex parte communication, the court must consider the following: whether additional evidence pertinent to the application was requested after the close of the public hearing; Kyser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 236 , 251-52 , 230 A.2d 595 (1967); whether "the information requested by the commission was within the scope of the [matters] presented at the public hearing. . . ;" Gardiner v. Conservation Commission, 222 Conn. 98 , 103 , 608 A.2d 672 (1992); and whether the ex parte communication was from

1992As stated in Danseyar v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, "Besides the plaintiff, a proponent of the petition, has failed to show how he was prejudiced, since he and his attorney were in attendance at the hearing and were fully heard." Finally, Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc. v. New Milford Zoning Commission, 6 Conn. L.Rptr. 60 (1992) holds that a zoning commission may render a decision approving a zoning change at a commission meeting held one year after the close of the public hearing held with respect to that ordinance, without providing further public notice of its intention to consid

1991Plaintiff relies on the Connecticut Supreme Court case of Connecticut Fund for the Environment v. Stamford, 192 Conn. 247 , 249 (1984), for the proposition that a procedure which prohibits the plaintiff from being given an opportunity to review information relevant to the application, cross-examine the experts who prepared the information, or rebut the information at a meaningful time in the proceedings is illegal.

1991The defendant Reynolds contends in its brief, page 16, that the plaintiff's due process argument is misplaced, and argues that in cases concerning subdivision applications, procedural due process rights are very limited, citing Reed v. PZC, 208 Conn. 431 , 433 (1988).

1991Unlike the present case, both Pizzola v. Planning Zoning Commission, 167 Conn. 202 (1974) and Wasicki v. Zoning Board, 163 Conn. 166 (1972) involve the submission of additional testimony and evidence after the close of the public hearing.

1991"In passing upon a subdivision application, the Commission is controlled by the regulations it has previously adopted." Westport v. Norwalk, 167 Conn. 151 , 155 , 157 (1974).