Opinion ID: 1965226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Intent and Purpose of the Regulations

Text: We next address the commission's determination that the proposed use of the property would be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the town's zoning provisions in violation of § 8.04.720 of the regulations because the evidence presented at the hearings established that the' society intended to use the property as a tele-medicine treatment site for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, which was not a permissible use in a residential zone. [37] The evidence on which the commission relied in support of this finding was an article that appeared in The Hartford Courant on June 27, 2002, in which it was reported that Khmer Health Advocates, asocial services agency serving the Cambodian community in Connecticut, had obtained a $380,000 federal matching grant to create a network of satellite health services offices, one of which was to be located at the Cambodian Buddhist [temple] in Newtown. . . . In a letter to the commission dated November 26, 2002, Me denied the report, stating that the society had determined . . . that the . . . proposed temple would not be suitable as a . . . satellite site and that such a use would disrupt the society's development program for the temple. Me further stated that The Hartford Courant never had contacted the society to verify the accuracy of the information contained in its article. We conclude that, if the proposed use of the property as a temple otherwise complied with all applicable zoning regulations, the mere possibility that the temple would be used for an impermissible purpose would not be a legitimate ground for denying the application. See Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619, 628, 711 A.2d 675 (1998) ([a] zoning commission does not have discretion to deny a special permit when the proposal meets the [applicable] standards). In the absence of any evidence that the proposed permissible use was pretextual or that the society deliberately misled the commission, we cannot conclude that the newspaper article constituted substantial evidence that the society intended to use the property for an impermissible purpose if its application for a special exception were approved.