Sendak v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Ridgefield

• Decision Date: 29 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. 3934,3934
• Citation: 508 A.2d 781,7 Conn.App. 238
• Parties: Maurice SENDAK et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF RIDGEFIELD et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

Page 781

508 A.2d 781

7 Conn.App. 238

Maurice SENDAK et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF RIDGEFIELD et al.

No. 3934.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Jan. 10, 1986.

Decided April 29, 1986.

Barbara J. Wardenburg, with whom, on brief, was Samuel M. Chambliss, Ridgefield, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Robert A. Fuller, Wilton, for appellee (defendant The Portland Corp.).

Before DUPONT, C.J., and BORDEN and BIELUCH, JJ.

BORDEN, Judge.

This appeal arises out of a stipulated judgment whereby the named defendant, the planning and zoning commission of the town of Ridgefield (commission), and the defendant Portland Corporation (Portland), agreed to settle several actions pertaining to Portland's repeated attempts to obtain approval of its applications for subdivision of real property. The plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court challenging the commission's action in entering into the stipulated judgment. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal. The principal issue before us is whether the commission's decision to enter into a stipulated judgment in settlement of litigation with Portland constitutes "an official action or decision of a planning commission" within the meaning of General Statutes § 8-28 so as to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court to decide the plaintiffs' appeal from that decision. We hold that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, this settlement of litigation does not constitute such an official action or decision and, accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal.

The facts, which are not in dispute, are best understood in the context of the following history. In 1979, Portland made its first application to the commission for subdivision of Portland's property into fifteen lots. There are two steps in that application process: (1) designation of the property as suitable for subdivision; and (2) approval of the subdivision plan. The commission denied the application and Portland appealed to the Superior Court (the first appeal). In April, 1980, the commission and Portland entered into an agreement whereby the commission agreed to designate and approve an eleven lot subdivision upon Portland's submission of an eleven lot application. Portland submitted the application, the commission approved it, and the plaintiffs appealed the commission's decision to the Superior Court claiming to be aggrieved as abutting and as nearby landowners (the second appeal). While the second appeal was pending, on September 29, 1980, the agreement between Portland and the commission was incorporated into a stipulated judgment of the Superior Court in the first appeal. Thereafter, the Superior Court ruled in the second appeal that the commission's decision on Portland's resubmitted application was invalid because it had not been published. The commission subsequently published the decision to approve that application.

In April, 1983, Portland submitted a new application to the commission seeking designation and approval of a twelve lot subdivision. In June, 1983, the commission granted the application in part; the property was designated for subdivision but the twelve lot plan was not approved. Portland appealed the denial of this application to the Superior Court (the third appeal). While this third appeal was pending, Portland submitted an eleven lot application similar to the prior application, which had been fully approved by the commission and incorporated into the court's judgment in the first appeal. On December 6, 1983, the commission voted to deny the eleven lot application, and Portland appealed that decision to the Superior Court (the fourth appeal). Meanwhile, the plaintiffs had moved to intervene in both the third and fourth appeals, which motions were not immediately ruled upon.

In June, 1984, Portland initiated a mandamus action against the commission to compel compliance with the Superior Court's judgment of September 29, 1980, which was rendered in the first appeal. The trial of that action commenced on July 2, 1984, and, upon hearing part of the evidence, the trial court, Lavery, J., continued the proceedings to a later date so that counsel for the commission could meet with the commission members to discuss possible settlement of all of the pending litigation between the commission and Portland. On July 10, 1984, the commission members met with their counsel in an executive session and, immediately thereafter, the commission passed a resolution authorizing its counsel to enter into a stipulated judgment with Portland in settlement of all pending litigation upon Portland's agreement to certain terms and conditions. On July 13, 1984, Portland met with counsel for the commission and the town planner, and reached a settlement agreement which was conditioned upon, inter alia, the termination of all of the pending litigation. On July 16, 1984, the Superior Court, Moraghan, J., denied the plaintiffs' motions to intervene in the two pending appeals, namely, the third and fourth appeals. On July 17, 1984, the commission met with its counsel and the town planner in executive session and, immediately thereafter, passed a resolution confirming its agreement with Portland and confirming its intent to enter into stipulated judgments in all of the pending litigation. On July 18, 1984, the court, Lavery, J., rendered judgment for Portland in the mandamus action, in the fourth appeal and in a related wetlands appeal, and Portland thereafter withdrew the third appeal in accordance with the stipulation. On July 19, 1984, the commission published legal notice indicating that a stipulated judgment had been rendered.

By petition dated August 1, 1984, the plaintiffs, as abutting and nearby landowners, initiated the appeal to the Superior Court which is the basis of this case. They alleged, inter alia, that the commission's decision to enter...