Opinion ID: 1965226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Health and Safety Considerations

Text: Finally, we address the commission's conclusion that the proposed use of the property did not comply with § 8.04.750 of the regulations, which requires that [t]he proposed use shall not create a health or safety hazard to persons or property on or off the lot on which the use is proposed, because the society had not established that the proposed subsurface wastewater system or private water system would meet the public health code. The following additional facts are necessary to our resolution of this issue. Wilson Alford, an engineer, spoke at the October 17, 2002 hearing on behalf of the society and stated that the proposed septic system for the temple would have no impact on neighboring properties if properly, designed and installed. Bart Clark, an engineer employed by Oakwood Environmental Associates, appeared at the December 9, 2002 hearing and submitted a letter prepared on behalf of the Newtown Residential Preservation Society in which he stated that the proposed septic system did not appear to comply with standard procedures required by the [s]tate [h]ealth [c]ode and identified potential deficiencies. John R. Trautman, an ecological consultant, also spoke at the December 9, 2002 hearing and indicated that he did not believe that the septic system would function properly as designed. At the time of the hearings, the society had not obtained approval from the State department of public health (department) for the plans for the septic system. The record nevertheless reveals that the society received a letter from the department dated February 20, 2003, stating that the plans for the proposed septic system were found to be generally satisfactory and in accordance with the requirements of the Public Health Code. The department approved the plans with certain stipulations and modifications. The department also stated that [t]he [d]rinking [w]ater [d]ivision of the [d]epartment of [p]ublic [h]ealth must be contacted regarding water supply matters since the facility is likely to be classified as a public water system. This office does not recommend approval until all water supply matters have been addressed. It is unclear from the record, however, when this letter was submitted to the commission and, in particular, whether the commission considered the letter in denying the society's application at its February 20, 2003 regular meeting. A zoning commission generally is not authorized to grant land use applications conditioned on the approval of another agency over which the commission has no control. See, e.g., River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Planning Commission, 271 Conn. 41, 56, 856 A.2d 959 (2004) (commission action which is dependent for its proper functioning on action by other agencies over which the zoning commission has no control cannot be sustained unless the necessary action appears to be a probability [internal quotation marks omitted] ). This general principle, however, does not apply to applications for special exceptions. See Lurie v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 160 Conn. 295, 307, 278 A.2d 799 (1971) (when an exception . . . is granted and the grant is otherwise valid except that it is made reasonably conditional on favorable action by another agency or agencies over which the zoning authority has no control, its issuance will not be held invalid solely because of the existence of any such condition). In the present case, the trial court concluded that, under Lurie, it would have been within the commission's discretion to grant the society's application conditioned on the department's approval of the society's proposed septic and water supply systems, but the commission was not required to do so. We agree. Although conditional approvals of applications for special exceptions are permissible, they are not required. Because the society had not obtained approval of its proposed septic and water supply systems when it submitted its application to the commission, and because there was evidence from which the commission could have concluded that those systems would have created a health risk, we conclude that the commission's determination that the proposed use constituted a potential health or safety hazard was supported by substantial evidence.