DocketNumber: No. CV 99 0497666S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4864-bv, 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 239
Judges: SATTER, J.T.R.
Filed Date: 3/27/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The facts are as follows: Pathways applied to the Commission on March 10, 1999, for a special permit and site plan approval for an addition and conversion of an existing eight bedroom residence for use as a convalescent home for sixteen mentally handicapped individuals at 509 East Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, in a R-20 zone. The Commission denied the application on June 23, 1999. Pathways appealed that decision to this court on July 9, 1999. Subsequently, Pathways and the Commission entered into discussions to settle the case and the Commission elected to discuss the prospects of settlement in one of its public meetings.
Brookridge, composed of owners of residences in the immediate area of the subject property, stated in its motion one of its primary purposes is to safeguard the single family character of the neighborhood. When the matter of settlement of this case by the parties hereto was placed on the Commission's agenda, Brookridge, on January 21, 2000, moved to intervene.
The courts of Connecticut have generally been liberal in permitting abutting owners of real property to be made parties in zoning matters.Buckey v. Zoning Board of Appeals,
Both the plaintiff Pathways and the defendant the Commission oppose the intervention on the grounds that it is not timely, would delay the proceedings, prejudice existing parties, and impede resolution of the controversy before the court.
The critical fact is that the existing parties have entered into a stipulation of settlement. Since Brookridge has clearly indicated in its papers that it opposes the settlement, allowing it to be made a party at this time would prevent any settlement at all. Ralto Developers Inc. v.Environmental Impact Commission,
In exercising its discretion to allow intervention, the court has a right to consider the powerful special interest in promoting settlement of litigation by agreement of the parties. As the court said in Sendakv. Planning and Zoning Commission,
Brookridge is not without the opportunity in these proceedings to have its purported interests protected. Section 8-8n provides: "No appeal taken under subsection (b) of this section shall be withdrawn and no settlement between the parties to any such appeal shall be effective unless and until a hearing has been held before the Superior Court and such court has approved such proposed withdrawal or settlement." That section is designed to protect anyone whose interest might be effected by the settlement, both parties to the appeal and nonparties. ChrysalisCenter, Inc. v. City of Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals, 11 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 12, 374. 375 (May 30, 1994) (Maloney, J.). As stated in Levinev. Plan and Zoning Commission,
Thus, Brookridge may request an opportunity to be heard at the §
Based on the foregoing, the court denies the motion to intervene.