166 GLOVER AVENUE, LLC v. CITY OF NORWALK ZONING COMMISSION.

2008 Ct. Sup. 11631
No. CV 08 4013524 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
July 15, 2008

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO INTERVENE (102) AND OBJECTION THERETO DATED JUNE 4, 2008
KARAZIN, J.

This case comes to this court where the Norwalk Hospital seeks to be made a party defendant-appellee in this land use appeal. This case presents an unusual posture in that the entire transcript of the proceedings before the board was not transcribed. The parties attempted to tape it, or otherwise mechanically record it. It did not work. They sent it to an expert who in the past has been able to resurrect those tapes, and they were not able to do it. Thus, the entire proceeding will have to be reconstructed under Connecticut Statutes § 8-8k. That section provides “the court shall review the proceedings of the board and shall allow any party to introduce evidence in addition to the contents of the record if (1) the record does not contain a complete transcript of the entire proceedings before the board . . .”

The entire transcript is missing. It requires parties to introduce the evidence. The attorney for the city represented to the court that there was no representative of the city at the hearings. The Norwalk Hospital in opposition was there and attended. In fact, Attorney Zullo orchestrated the objection to the request. The Zoning Commission denied the relief sought. This is an appeal from that denial.

Section 52-102 of the General Statutes allows permissive intervention. The court in determining whether permissive intervention is warranted, may balance many of the same factors considered in connection with a determination of whether intervention as of right has been established. Importantly though, not every element must be present. The factors to be balanced include the timeliness of the intervention, the proposed intervener’s interest in the controversy, the adequacy of the representation of such interest by other parties, the delay in the proceedings or other prejudice to the existing parties the intervention may cause, and the necessity for, or value of the intervention resolving the controversy before the court.

CT Page 11632 The court finds that the presence of the Norwalk Hospital will assist in resolving the controversy. This is particularly true given its substantial role in the Zoning Commission proceedings for which at least for a portion of those proceedings, no verbatim transcript tape is available. The motion to intervene is timely having been filed on May 2, 2008. This case was returned to the court on March 9, 2008. The Norwalk Hospital’s interest in the controversy is significant given the Norwalk Hospital’s claim of its unusual position as the only acute care hospital in Norwalk. The court further finds there will no delay in the appeal or prejudice to the existing parties if intervention is permitted. In fact, the intervention will expedite in this court’s opinion, the recreation of the record necessary to present this case to the court.

This motion and the objection thereto were argued on June 18, 2008. The court at that time was entering scheduling orders in these cases which would have been the return of record in this matter by July 18, 2008. There is no way this record can be ready to be returned by that date.

In addition, in the plaintiff’s-appellant’s appeal, three paragraphs of the appeal being Paragraphs 9, 15 and 19 specifically address as reasons for the reversal the participation of the Norwalk Hospital. This court finds it would not be an abuse of discretion to allow the Norwalk Hospital to intervene.

Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene #102 is granted.

The Objection is overruled for all of the reasons set forth herein.

CT Page 11633

image_pdfimage_print