Town of Wallingford v. ZBA (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD

This court held a hearing to determine whether or not the Town of Wallingford should be permitted to supplement the record.   For reasons articulated below the court grants the request to add to the record:  (1) the 1985 City of Meriden Land Use Plan;  (2) the 2004 Proposal by the Applicant to amend the RDD zone;  and (3) Excerpts from the Plan of Conservation and Development.   The plaintiff may not supplement the record with:  documents relating to the adoption of the RDD Zone or the 1994 Amendment to the RDD.

I.

1985 City of Meriden Land Use Plan

The plaintiff seeks to supplement the record with the 1985 City of Meriden Land Use Plan because it claims that it was relied upon by the defendant in its deliberation.   The defendant disputes this.   The 1985 Land Use Plan is referenced in the record at R.2, p. 3 and R.27, p.3. It appears that this plan was in effect at the time of the subject application.   Therefore, it was likely relied upon directly or indirectly by the defendant.   Accordingly, the plaintiff may supplement the record with it.

II.

2004 Proposal by the Applicant to amend the RDD zone

The plaintiff presents the 2004 Proposal by the Applicant as a submission memorializing a failed proposal by the same applicant concerning the same regulation and the same property.   The defendant opposes the submission because this application was made to a different governmental entity.   This court is allowing the plaintiff to supplement the record with it because it was referenced in the Record and because it was the subject of discussion among the commissioners before their vote in the underlying action.   This proposal is referenced explicitly in R.2, which is the planning staff's letter to the ZBA regarding the planning staff's recommendation that the application for the variance be denied.   In fact, the “failed proposal” was summarized in R.2. And, in the transcript of R.35, when the commissioners had a brief discussion after the public hearing and before their vote, they discussed the fact that the proposal had been presented before to another entity.

III.

Excerpts from the Plan of Conservation and Development

The submission of these excerpts will merely supplement what is already a part of the record.   R.29 is the cover and first seven pages of the Plan of Conservation and Development.   Since this is supplementing a document already in the record, the court allows it.

IV.

Records Not Allowed

The plaintiff maintains that documents relating to the adoption of the RDD zone are evidence of original intent in the creation of the zone.   It also argues that these documents are referenced in the record.   The court denies the plaintiff's request to supplement the record because it is essentially attempting to put before the court “legislative history” of the RDD zone.   The stated purpose of the RDD zone is already in the record and there is no evidence that the defendant relied upon this specific legislative history in its deliberations.

The plaintiff also offers three items that demonstrate that a different applicant succeeded when they applied for an amendment to the RDD zone.   The amendments are only referred to in the plaintiff's appeal and were not discussed in the public hearing or referenced in the record.

For these reasons, the court will not allow the plaintiff to supplement the record with the documents relating to the adoption of the RDD zone or documents relating to the 1994 Amendment to the RDD.

Robinson, J.

Robinson, Angela C., J.