DOCKET NO. DBD CV-226041619- SUPERIOR COURT 3 LAKE AVENUE EXTENSION, LLC + 1.0, 0F DANBEHRE og p 107 cafe Ce Vv. AT DANB\ . g YB nen sp CITY OF DANBURY ZONING COMMISSION oecemaers, 2039! Bj, >, MEMORANDUM OF DECISION INTRODUCTION The plaintiff/appellant, 3 Lake Avenue Extension, LLC, submitted an application for zoning regulation amendments to Sec. 2.B to change the existing definition of the term “Dwelling unit” and the term “shelter for the homeless” as well as to create a new definition for the term “Transitional shelter for the homeless” and under Sec. 58.5g (2) and (15) to add a Special Exception Use for “Transitional shelter for the homeless.” (ROR 6) The proposed amendments related to the use in a CA-80. The application submitted by the plaintiff referred to property at 3 Lake Avenue Extension that was location of a Super 8 motel. ‘The Zoning Commission of the City of Danbury voted six to three to deny the application for the amendments to the regulations on November 23, 2021. The decision was published on November 29, 2021. (ROR 45). The plaintiff/appellant filed an appeal of this denial by way of a complaint dated December 10, 2022. This appeal was timely filed FACTUAL BACKGROUND ‘The plaintiff/appellant is the owner of property at 3 Lake Avenue Extension in Danbury Connecticut. ‘The property contains a structure which has operated as a “Super 8” motel. The building contains 86 rooms. The property is zoned CA-80 pursuant to the City of Danbury Zoning Regulations. The property is located in an area which is a main thoroughfare. The property is a corner lot and adjacent to various businesses and residential properties. Itis within the area serving the off-ramp to I-84. Thus, there is no downtown area or neighborhood which serves the motel. Other than a McDonald's located across Lake ‘Avenuie Extension and a Dunkin Donuts, there are no eating establishments. There is no walking neighborhood and the location is behind a gas station and adjacent to a strip mall for the mini market, a The hotel was located at the ramp to -84 to service travelers and prior to the pandemic was a hotel serving the travelling or business public. This use was consistent with the zoning regulations of a CA-80 zone noted as Arterial ‘Commercial District in that the purpose was defined as “to provide for general and heavy commercial uses in appropriate locations along major roadways in the City." (ROR 48) 1vape shop and an adult store. The only walking area is the residential zone which abuts the property some feet from the main four lane thoroughfare of Lake Avenue Extension. tn March 2020 the State of Connecticut faced challenges as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the concerns of the state was the public health and safety of the citizens of the State, The Governor originally entered seventeen executive orders which addressed the multitude of concerns about the ongoing health and welfare of the publi.? These orders included Executive Order 7P signed on March 29, 2020, which required that the density of congregate housing, that is homeless shelters, be reduced and that alternate housing for people experiencing homelessness as necessary to protect the public health and safety. (ROR 1, Tab 5, p.44). Executive Order 7P stated that the “Commissioner of Housing has been coordinating with other state agencies and offices to secure the availabilty of hotel and motel rooms and other faclities deemed by DOH to be appropriate for non-congregate housing... throughout the State of Connecticut in order to reduce the density within homeless shelters and other congregate housing in order to protect public health and safety, including reducing any spread of COVID- 119 within such shelters or congregate housing” The order indicated that it was to take effect immediately and shall remain in effect for the duration of the public health and civil preparedness emergency, unless earlier modified or terminated by me by further Notice and Order”> This order and other Executive orders from the Governor addressed the emergency nature of the pandemic and were limited in time to address the present concerns. In addition to the orders which addressed the homeless shelters, the Governor entered orders related to the permissible lodging at hotels and motels that included homeless individuals and others specticaly noted in Executive Order 7T which addressed safe lodging, flexibility for Victims of Domestic Violence or other measures. In particular, this order prohibited non-essential lodging for hotels and motels. It permitted lodging only when offered for specific purposes such as housing and accommodation for ns time passed the Governor extended or added orders and in 2021 had entered approximately fifty such orders for public health and welfare. In addressing this concern, the Department of Housing on March 31, 2020 Issued a Notice that informed homeless shelter providers that there was Alternate Housing and there were procedures to access this housing. ‘The State informed the shelters that they were in the process of “securing the availability of hotel and motel rooms and other facilities deemed by DOH to be appropriate for non-congregate housing ... in order to reduce the density within housing shelters and other congregate housing in order to protect public health and safety...” March 31, 2020 Notice and Order regarding Executive Order 7P. 2members of vulnerable populations. . . including emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness.‘ See Executive Order 71. ‘The original orders of 7 and 7T were effective through April 20, 2020. Thereafter, the orders were extended as believed necessary to address ongoing public health concerns. Both Executive orders, 7 and 7, were temporary with dates for enforcement entered for each order. On June 16, 2020, the Governor amended the Executive Order to permit with operation restrictions, Executive Order 7T related to hotels/motels but permitted an extended but controlled use. Executive Order 7P was renewed and extended a number of times to May 20, 2021, July 20, 2021, September 30, 2021 and February 15, 2022, through Executive Orders with the final being Executive Order No. 14 that allowed the extension of funding for non-congregate homeless shelters through February 15, 2022. ‘The Commissioner of Public Health, Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management and the Commissioners of Emergency Services and Public Protection and Housing entered the orders seeking alternatives to the homeless dormitories which were operating in March 2020. There were a number of homeless shelters that were operating in both the RH-3 zone and the C-CBD zone in Danbury. On March 31, 2020, the Commissioner of Housing ordered homeless shelters to find alternatives to homeless sites. * The plaitiff/appellant argues that the plaintiff was operating more than jut a homeless shelter at this facility. Thisis overstated because in accordance with 77 the operation of a hotel/motel was greatly restricted. The order provided that “permissible lodging shall be permitted only when offered and employed for the following uses: Housing and accommodation for health care workers, frst responders, and other workers who work for an Essential Business pursuant to Executive Order 7H. . i. To the extent nat already included in (a), housing and accommodation for out-of state workers engaged in transportation of materials logistics, and construction associated with the delivery of health-related services, such asthe development of COVID-19 alternative care sites, testing facilites, or research; i, Housing and accommodation for members of vulnerable populations, including but not limited to emergency shelter for people experiencing homeless and victims of domestic violence, and persons returning form incarceration. iv. Housing and accommodation for Connecticut residents () who are self'isolating or are subject to a quarantine order; (i) families or roommates of such individuals who are selfsolating or are subject to quarantine order; but (il) in each case, for no longer than the period required to complete the necessary period of selfisolation or quarantine. v. Housing and accommodation for individuals receiving long-term, specialized medical care from a physician licensed or located in Connecticut and for accompanying family members. vi, Housing, accommodation, and shelter when required by extenuating circumstances such a fre or casualty to ensure the care and safety of Connecticut residents and to accommodate ather persons unable to return to their own homes due to fight cancellations, border closures, or other direct and material constraints on travel. vi Housing and accommodation to the extent necessary for workers engaged in providing or servicing or maintaining lodging for any ofthe purposes described above.” The Order specifically states as to other purposes that“ Lodging offered, operated, or employed for purposes other than those listed in subsection (b) above shall not be permitted...”‘Asa result of 7P and in accordance with the alternatives recognized by the State for the emergency to permit non-congregate housing in hotels or motels, the officials in Danbury arranged for the use of the Super 8 motel located on Lake Avenue Extension in the CA-80 zoning district to satisfy this order and re- locate on a temporary basis any homeless individuals seeking shelter. This relieve was sought as a means of addressing the COVID pandemic so as to segregate the individuals who were in need of homeless shelters. As such, the City of Danbury along with the assistance of funding from the State of Connecticut and federal funding arranged for temporary emergency housing for homeless responded to the Executive Orders of the Governor. The city opened a shelter in a temporary location as an alternative permitted by Executive Order that could accommodate all of the homeless but it was in a zone that did not permit a shelter for the homeless. The facility was initially serviced by the city and shortly after opening received assistance from individuals at Pacific House. The parties all agree that the use as a homeless shelter or a transitional homeless shelter is not permitted in the CA-80 zone. The plaintiff notes that if not approved for an amendment and special exception the use is illegal. However, the plaintiff indicated at the hearing that if not approved, “they would continue to operate under the Governor's pandemic orders. When the orders expire, now slated for mid-February, arguably there would be non-compliant zoning use.” (ROR 45 at 35). If the amendments are not approved, they do not have a plan 8. Id. {At the time of the passage of the Executive Orders by the Governor, the City of Danbury and some non-profit organizations were operating housing shelters as a permissible use in two zoning districts, C- CBD and RH-3. These zones permitted the operation of a homeless shelter by way of special exception ‘The RH-3 district known as a high-rise residential district had as a purpose “to provide for: a compatible mix of high density residential, limited commercial, institutional and neighborhood uses in the urban core of the City; compatible site design; minimum standards of health and safety; adequate daylight, ventilation, quiet, privacy and recreational opportunity; prevention of congestion and the overcrowding of land; and, promotion of a diversity of housing types.” (ROR 48). The regulation permits the operation asa special exception use pursuant to Sec. 4D.5 (h) which provides that, (1) the “shelter must be sponsored by a non-profit organization, and (2) Each shelter shall not exceed twenty beds per lot.” {Emphasis added.) (ROR 48, 40.5. (j)). The Central Business District: C-CBD states that the purpose is “0 allow a mixture of compatible uses which will strengthen the downtown as the social and economic 4focus of the City; to promote a cohesive downtown for the interaction of people and businesses; to stimulate investment; to improve vehicular access, safety, and parking; to facilitate pedestrian movement; and to provide a setting for community activities.” (ROR 48). This district also permits a homeless shelter by special exception. Sec. 5.F2b. (9). The regulation states it “shall be sponsored by the City or a non-profit organization.” ( ROR 48 Sec. 5F.S d.) Within these districts, housing shelters operated for a maximum of 20 people permitted per lot. The existing homeless shelters operating in the city were Amos House, New Street, Elm Street and the Women's Center. (ROR 6, Tab I and hearing Nov. 16 at 173-78). During COVID the homeless shelters did not service the individuals as ordered by the Governor. The Commissioner of Housing arranged for an alternative, temporary, facility as a homeless shelter at the Super 8 motel to service those needs. ‘The Governor's orders did not prohibit a re-opening return of the homeless shelters that operated prior to the entering of Executive Order 7P5 In March 2021, 3 Lake Avenue Extension, LLC filed an application with the city of Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to allow the Super 8 motel to be operated as a facility entitled a Transitional Homeless Shelter in the CA-80 zone. (ROR 1 Tab5). The applicant provided a new definition and described the operation as a new use but incorporating the prior service of providing beds to homeless. The base of this operation was the homeless shelter that was opened as a result of COVID orders. The application provided more than just beds but also included what was defined as supportive services and affordable housing units. (See application ROR 1). There was opposition to the application and the question of hardship as to the ability to allow the operation at that site. The application was withdrawn before a final decision but after a public hearing which was in May 2021. During the time the application was pending with the Zoning Board, 3 Lake Avenue Extension, LLC purchased the Super 8 hotel. This purchase was made with knowledge that the zone, absent the emergency order, did not permit the operation of a homeless shelter or a new transitional homeless shelter as the plaintiff now defines the use. The financing was given through the state in grant funding for 4.6 million to purchase the facility At the hearing in November 2021, the plaintiff's representatives recognized that the orders for shutdown would bbe vacated in February 2022, in approximately four months time "The funds for purchase were obtained by $4.6 milion in grant monies from the State of Connecticut. (ROR 6 Tabi)‘Thereafter, on August 16, 2021, 3 Lake Avenue Extension LLC filed a second application with the Danbury zoning officials. This application was the same uses described in the variance application but was a request to amend the regulations.’ The application included a request for new terms for a homeless shelter and definitions related to the term “transitional homeless shelter.” The application requested that the Commission amend the CA-80 district to permit by special exception a “transitional shelter for the homeless.” (ROR 1, Tab 1, Tab 2 at 12). The amendments add the following language to Sec. 2B defining a “Transitional shelter for the homeless.” It proposes: “A facility that provides both supportive units and emergency shelter rooms and associated services to those experiencing homelessness, which such facility is controlled and operated by either (1) a non-profit housing organization pursuant to a contract with the Connecticut Department of Housing; or (2) the City of Danbury. Supportive units shall consist of a room/rooms with an area for sleeping and contain a kitchenette comprised only of a mini-refrigerator and microwave, a bathroom, and a required sink. Gas or electrical services for ovens, ranges, cooktops and associated venting shall not be permitted within any supportive units or emergency shelter rooms. The facility shall contain offices for supportive services including but not limited to social and case management services, counseling, and similar programs and supportive services provided by the non-profit or City to enable individuals experiencing, homelessness to transition to permanent housing and self-sufficiency. All supportive units and ‘emergency shelter rooms within the facility shall qualify as affordable housing within the meaning of CGS Section 8-30g as follows: supportive units shall be restricted in occupancy to persons or families, identified as family units within the meaning of CGS Section 8-30g, whose income is equal to or less than forty (40) percent of the state median income for a term no less than forty (40) years; and, emergency shelter rooms shall be restricted in occupancy to persons or families, identified as family units within the meaning of 8-30g, whose income is equal to or less than fifty (50) percent of the state median income for a period of not less than fifteen (15) years; transitional homeless shelter” (ROR 1, Tab 3) ‘The proposed amendment added to Sec. 5.B.5 as to the Specific Use Regulations: “Special Exception The petition filed by 3 Lake Avenue Extension was for the amendment to the CA-80 zone which was the zoning, classification for this property. However, during the course of the hearing and the memoranda from planning officials, it was noted there are three locations zoned CA-80 which may be impacted by the amendment. The plaintiff attempted to restrict this amendment and change to the Lake Ave property on November 9, 2022 but the Commission did not allow the change to the application.Uses, the following use regulations which apply to the special exception. g. Transitional shelter for the homeless. (1) Vehicular access to the site shall be provided solely from an arterial street. (2) The site shall abut a ramp from Exit 4 of Interstate 84, (3) The facility shall contain no greater than a total of eighty-six (86) supportive units and emergency shelter rooms used as accommodations for individuals, experiencing homelessness and/or transitioning from homeless to permanent housing. (4) There shall be 1no greater than forty-eight (48) supportive units within the facility. (5) No supportive unit or emergency shelter room shall be occupied by more than two (2) individuals; however, in emergency situations, more than two (2) individuals may be housed in a one-bedroom suite, provided that the total number of individuals accommodated within the facility shall not exceed one hundred-and-seventy-two (172). (6) Laundry facilities shall be available and accessible to emergency shelter room occupants, anda laundry room shall be located on each floor with supportive units for use by said supportive unit occupants. (7) No exterior site or facade alterations shall be made without required permits and approvals issued by the City of Danbury. (8) The facility may contain a room within the building where food is provided to shelter occupants, subject to obtaining all required permits and approvals. (9) An interior layout plan of the facility shall be submitted with any application for special exception and site plan approval and shall accompany the application for issuance of a Zoning Permit to use the transitional shelter for the homeless.” ‘The application was heard during three dates of public hearings on September 23, 2021, November 9, 2021 and November 16, 2021. (ROR 42, 43, and 44). The hearing was also re-opened on November 23, 2021 for additional testimony and evidence as well as a decision by the Commission. (ROR 45). On November 23, 2021, the Commission conducted deliberations on the application. The Commission voted to deny 3 Lake Avenue Extension's petition for an amendment of the regulations by a vote of six to 3. (ROR 45 at 86, ROR 46 and 47). The reasons for denial set forth by the Commission are: “1) The addition of the new use in Section 2.8 entitled ‘Transitional shelter for the homeless’ with the specific requirements is unacceptable as the use creates a facility that allows emergency shelter beds in an amount greater than 20 beds, which is the maximum number of beds the City has consistently allowed in uses defined as a shelter for the homeless in the C-CBD and RH-3 Zoning Districts; 2) Based on ® although the proposal contains 86 units, the plaintiff continually denied this was a proper number. No one made a change to reduce or delineate a break-down in the proposed amendments to the regulations. zthe list of existing uses contained within the Zoning Regulations and commensurate definitions, there is no necessity to add the new use as proposed. A shelter of the homeless is currently defined; 3) A shelter for the homeless is already permitted by grant of special exception in both the C-CBD and RH-3 Zoning Districts. The Commission finds sufficient land area exists within those two zones to locate a shelter for the homeless as currently defined and regulated; 4) As to the similarity of the proposed use with existing uses in the CA-80 Zone, the proposed new use is not compatible to uses already allowed, as permitted or by special exception, in said Zone; 5) While the Petition presented an opportunity to add affordable units to the City’s inventory of affordable housing of the purposes of the Affordable Housing Appeals List and any related moratorium application, the benefit of the addition of units gained as part of a transitional shelter for homeless is outweighed by the intensity of the use permitted by the Petition and its adverse effects in the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods; 6) The Zoning Commission acknowledges that the Planning Commission, on September 21, 2021, issued a positive referral on the Petition finding that, among other reasons as noted in said correspondence, the Petition was consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development (“POCD”); 7) The Zoning Commission has considered the consistency of the Petition with the policies and recommendation of the POCD as required pursuant to €.G:S. Section 8-3(b) and the Zoning Regulations and finds that while aspects of the Petition are consistent with recommendations for the Housing Plan section of the POCD, the use as proposed is dissimilar to and incompatible with existing uses in the general and limited commercial zone as identified on the Land Development Plan map for the parcels within the CA-80 zone; 8) Notwithstanding correspondence and testimony from the residents in the vicinity of the existing emergency shelter at 3 Lake Avenue Extension, operated by Pacific House under an Executive Order issued by the Governor of the State of Connecticut, support concerns that establishment of a permanent transitional shelter facility as could be established if the zoning amendments are approved, may result in detrimental impacts to the public health, welfare, and safety of the residents and businesses of the surrounding area and could decrease property values. While the commission does not question the sincerity and dedication of the petitioner, it’s representatives and proponents of the amendments, the commission finds more credible ‘the evidence as submitted by surrounding area business and property owners that demonstrates the adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare already experienced with the Pacific House's current operation of the shelter and is not persuaded by the petitioners promises that the adverse effects will 8not continue in the future; (9) The amendments as proposed raise the potential argument that they result in spot zoning, which is illegal in the State of Connecticut; and (10) As the commission is denying ‘the amendment to define a transitional shelter for the homeless and its’ addition in the CA-80 zone, there is no necessity to amend the definition of dwelling unit or shelter for the homeless in Section 28, therefore these amendments are commensurately denied.” (ROR 45 p. 73-76, ROR 46 and 47). ‘The appellant, 3 Lake Avenue LLC, additionally argues that it was clear during the deliberations that the politics would prevail over fact, law, logic and common sense in the decision of the Zoning ‘Commission. They contend that the action of denial was illegal and not entitled to judicial deference for the following reasons: 1) the Commission violated its affirmative obligation under General Statutes § 8-2 to use its zoning power to accommodate essential public health and safety facilities; 2) the Commission violated the caselaw interpretation of § 8-2 that zoning decisions must promote “proper purpose of zoning”; 3) the Commission violated § 8-2 as amended by P.A. 21-29 by denying the application ostensibly to “protect the character” of a neighborhood and the City of Danbury; 4) the Commission adopted a denial that was contradicted by consensus analysis of the City’s own professional planning and legal staff, and data from the Danbury Police Department; 5) the Commission adopted a denial resolution that is not supported even by sufficient evidence; 6) the Commission violated General Statutes Chapter 124 by making a zoning decision that was effectively a plebiscite, a bow to political pressure rather than an adherence to legal requirements and facts in the record; 7) the Commission violated § 8-2 as amended by Public Act 21-29 by failing to use its Zoning Regulations to “affirmatively further purposes of the Federal Housing Act”; and 8) to the extent the shelter serves people with disabilities, violated the federal and state Fair Housing Acts by failing to provide a “reasonable accommodation” of the City’s zoning rules. (Appellants’ Brief in Support of the Appeal at 9) ‘The court held a hearing on August 3, 2023, at which time the parties appeared and addressed the issue of aggrievement and the positions in regard to the denial of the amendment.® The court has reviewed the record provided by the defendant including public hearing transcripts for September 28, November 16, and 23 which include an abundance of exhibits, letters, reports and a multitude of documents in support and in opposition to the application. The court has also received and reviewed The parties present a request to supplement the record to include actions that occurred after the November 23, 2021 decision of the Zoning Commission which the court denied. 9the extensive briefs dated May 24, 2023 and July 21, 2023 as well as a reply brief dated July 28, 2023. DISCUSSION ‘A. Aggrievement Proof of aggrievement is... .an essential prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction of the subject matter of the appeal” (Internal citations omitted, Internal quotation marks omitted.) Moutiho v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 278 Conn. 660, 664, 899 A.2d 26 (2006), Gladysz v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 256 Conn. 249, 256, 73 2d 300 (2001). The burden of proving aggrievernent rests with the plaintiff, Quarry Knoll I Corp. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 256 Conn. 674, 701, 780 A.2d 1 (2001). At the hearing on August 3, 2023, the plaintiff 3 Lake Avenue Extension LLC introduced into evidence an affidavit and a copy of the deed to the property at 3 Lake Avenue as Exhibit 1. The affidavit was sworn to by Rafael Pagan Jr, the Executive Director of Pacific House and the managing member of 3 Lake Avenue Extension LLC. The affidavit states that the plaintiff acquired the property by deed on April 20, 2021 and is recorded in the land records at Vol. 2563, Page 599-601, (Exh. A to the Affidavit). The affidavit also states that since the purchase it has been in continuous and uninterrupted ownership of the property. Based upon the affidavit, the Stipulation and the deed provided to the court finds that the plaintiff 3 Lake Avenue Extension LLC is aggrieved. B. General Standard The plaintiff has argued that the decision of the Commission to deny the amendments to the regulations is based upon a number of factors beyond the general standard for the review of the Commission decision. The court reviews not only the factors for considering the specific stated reasons for the denial but also examines the multitude of additional concerns which center around interpretation of CGS. § 8-2 related to the housing efforts, the Federal Fair Housing claims, the POCD, a Pretextual basis or the failure to adopt expert opinions. “in traditional zoning appeals the scope of judicial review depends on whether the zoning commission has acted in a legislative or administrative capacity. The discretion ofa legislative body, because of its constituted role as formulator of public policy, is much broader than that of an administrative board, which serves a quasi-judicial function. Acting in such legislative capacity, the local [zoning] board is free to amend ...its regulations whenever time, experience, and responsible planning for contemporary or 10future conditions reasonably indicate the need for a change.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cottie v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 100 Conn. App. 291, 293-94, 917 A. 2d 1030 (2007). “The courts allow zoning authorities this discretion in determining the public need and the means of meeting it, because the local authority lives close to the circumstances and conditions which create the problem and shape the solution.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) First Hartford Realty Corp. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 540, 338 A.2d 490 (1973). “(T]he commission, acting in a legislative capacity, [has] broad authority to adopt amendments... In such circumstances, itis not the function of the court to retry the case. The question is not whether the trial court would have reached the same conclusion but whether the record before the agency supports the decision reached. Calandro v. Zoning Commission, 176 Conn. 439, 440, 408 A.2d 229 (1979). This legislative discretion is “wide and liberal,’ and must not be disturbed by the courts unless the party aggrieved by the decision establishes that the commission acted arbitrarily or illegally” Protect Hamden/N. Haven from Excessive Traffic & Pollution, inc. . Planning & Zoning Commission, 220 Conn. 527, 543, 600 A.24 757 (1991). “Judicial review of zoning commission determinations is governed by the substantial evidence standard, under which, “[cJonclusions reached by [the] commission must be upheld by the trial court if they are reasonably supported by the record. The credibility of witnesses and the determination of issues of fact are matters solely within the province of the [commission]. Ifa trial court finds that there is substantial evidence to support a zoning board's findings, it cannot substitute its judgment for that of the board... there is conflicting evidence in support of the zoning commission's stated rationale, the reviewing court .... cannot substitute its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the ‘commission. .. The [commission's] decision must be sustained if an examination of the record discloses evidence that supports any one of the reasons given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) (Emphasis Added.) Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 285 Conn. 381, 427, 941 A.2d 868 (2008). ‘The substantial evidence standard is one that “is highly deferential and permits less judicial scrutiny than a clearly erroneous or weight of the evidence standard of review.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sams v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 308 Conn. 359, 374, 63 A.3d 953 (2013); accord Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 612, 931 A.2d 319 ("[t]he substantial aevidence standard is even more deferential” than clearly erroneous standard), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929, 934 A.2d 244 (2007). In this regard, our Supreme Court has described the substantial evidence standard as “an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Property Group, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 226 Conn. 684, 697-98, 628 A.2d 1277 (1993). In an appeal from a decision of a zoning commission, the “burden of overthrowing the decision rest{s] squarely upon “the appellant.” Verney v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 151Conn. 578, $80, 200 A.2d 714 (1964). See also Blaker v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 212 Conn. 471, 478, 562 A.2d 1093 (3989) {party challenging the action of zoning commission bears burden of proving that, commission acted improperly). Thus, to meet this burden the appellant must establish that substantial evidence does not exist in the record asa whole to support the decision. Samperi. Inland Wetlands Agency, 226 Conn.579, 587, 628 A.2d 1286 (1993), Several of the zoning commissioners recognized their responsibility and authority to make changes to the zoning regulations if the applicant demonstrates that the decision would favorably address the public health, safety and welfare. The plaintiff, 3 Lake Avenue Extension LLC bears the burden of showing by “clear and convincing proof,” that the decision of the commission was a clear abuse of the agency discretion and thus that the commission acted arbitrarily and illegally in exercising this discretion. Kaufman v. Zoning Commission, 232 Conn. 122, 151, 653 A.2d 798 (1995). In this regard, the record demonstrated that initially in the decision-making discussion, commission members candidly recognized their obligations in determining whether the regulations should be amended. The commission members acknowledged the overwhelming conflicting evidence and testimony by the plaintiffs, by interested parties, by officials, employees and members of the public in determining if the regulations should permit a new use within the CA-80 zone which they defined as a “transitional homeless shelter.” ¥° It is true that “[tJhe bright line rule is that decisions of zoning authorities should be overturned if they 2% As noted above, there were four days of public hearings with over 700 pages of transcript and hundreds of pages of exhibits. There were petitions with over 1,500 signatures and at least two separate reports from the police chief In regards to the safety concerns. 2have not been reached fairly and with proper motives.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barry v. Historie District Commission, 108 Conn. App. 682, 707, 950 A.2d 1, cert. denied, 289 Conn, 943, 959 ‘A.2d 1008 (2008). It is also the case however, that in situations “where municipal authorities act in accordance with formal requirements, courts will interfere only where fraud, corruption, improper motives or influences, plain disregard of duty, gross abuse of power, or violation of law, enter into or characterize the action taken. .. Mere differences in opinion among municipal officers or members or the municipal electorate are never a sufficient ground for judicial interference. .. any broader rule would potentially involve the courts in the review and revision of many, if not all, major controversial decisions of the legislative or executive authorities ora municipality.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Candlewood Hills Tax District v. Medina, 143 Conn. 230, 238, 74 A.3d421, cert. denied, 310 Conn, 929, 78 3d 856 (2013) In analyzing the proposed amendment, the commission was inundated with a wide range of opinions, interpretations and views from many individuals including neighbors, Danbury residents, politicians and city/state officials, religious leaders, government workers including social service employees or employees and directors for the plaintiff. The varying descriptions of the program, its intent to serve with a new method of operation for homeless shelters utilizing a facility much larger than any shelter permitted in the city introduced a new concept to the commission with the addition of a “transitional homeless shelter” The operation is intended to add services within the Super 8 motel, house many more individuals than has ever been approved under the present regulations and adds to the facility an aspect of affordable housing. All of these variables required that the Commission enter into the very difficult duty of weighing credibility of the many people from the public who gave testimony at the public hearing, submitted letters and other documents, reports, photos and opinion letters into the record both in favor of the application and against the application to the Commission. Weighing credibility became essential in analyzing this petition for purposes of permitting a new use in the CA-80 zone." The plaintiff argues that the court must find that there is insufficient evidence and that the 1 Not only is the transitional homeless shelter a new use for this zone but it’s operation and reach are beyond the homeless shelters that are presently permitted with special exception in both the RH-3 and C-CBD zones in Danbury. The plaintiff has described this operation as a new use because itis much more expansive than a homeless shelter incorporating undefined supportive services and what appears to be also affordable housing units, 2Bpublic testimony is not believable or admissible to support any of the ten reasons in support of the denial. The plaintiff contends the court cannot give credence to the many members of the public who cither testified at the hearing or provided statements, photographs, video or letters in opposition to the petition, The plaintiff contends that the information provided by the defendants does not satisfy reliability or evidentiary standards because itis too speculative or tainted by the opposition and thus is not trustworthy, The plaintiff also argues that the decision of the Commission to deny the petition was “to pander to the unproven, speculative claims of the opponents... to bow to the political heat from constituents.” The Commission has the ultimate duty of weighing the overwhelming amount of testimony and it must determine ifthe opposition has raised concerns that have not been eradicated by the plaintiff's presentation of testimony and evidence However, the Commission as the arbiter of credibility was “entitled to credit the testimony and evidence adduced di ng the [public hearing] in arriving at its ultimate conclusion.” Children’s School, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 66 Conn. App. 615, 630, 785 A.2d 607 (2001). Additionally, itis recognized that the zoning authority, presumably composed of lay persons, do not need to justify their actions in a form that would satisfy the meticulous criterion of a legal expert. DeMars v. Zoning Commission, 142 Conn. 580, 584, 115 A.2d 653 (1955). Interestingly, the plaintiff while challenging full throttle the information from the opposition as speculative offers their own beliefs that the problems in the area of the Super 8 motel are caused by the pandemic and the types of businesses in the area (vape shop, liquor store and adult entertainment shop). They argue without support that there is an increase in panhandling and other activities as a result of the pandemic and thus this may be the cause of the criminal and annoying conduct around the Super 8 motel. What this does say to the Commission is that since the Super 8 motel has been used ‘as a homeless shelter, there has been an increase in some criminal and disruptive activities. Thus, the Commission must determine what testimony they believe has supported the approval of the petition or the denial of the petition. There is no question that the parties are at opposite ends of the spectrum in their beliefs as to whether the zone should be amended to permit the use with a special exception 2 The plaintiff states in its memorandum that there is no other explanation of the denial that is consistent with the record” (Memorandum of Plaintif/Appellant). 4application that would address the particular proposal of a transitional homeless shelter Meanwhile, the plaintiff in their presentation for the petition provides no evidence to rebut what the public saw, heard or experienced was untrustworthy or not an accurate depiction. The plaintiff argues that the public did not certainly know they were shelter residents, but this ignores such comments as the individual had the blue blanket from the shelter or the individuals are loitering in the back of the Super 8 motel. The plaintiff wants the court and the public to ignore any common sense and knowledge of everyday life and the acquaintances of neighbors. The court disagrees with the plaintiff that itis impossible to believe the testimony and evidence by the opposition that lead to the denial. (See Appendix 1 as part of the Defendant’s Memorandum outlining the testimony of various members of the public.) But even given all of the comments, itis not this court that determines whether the information provided by the voluminous number of individuals who attended the meeting, who wrote letters or who submitted photos, videos or other documents to inform the Commission of their concerns should be found credible for support or in opposition to the decision. The Commission has the responsibility to weigh the testimony and the evidence provided to them. In other words, the Commission is the authority who determines credibility. In St. Joseph's High School v. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumbull, 176 Conn. App. 570, 170 A.3d 73 (2017), the court rejected the argument that the neighbors’ testimony about their impacts and effects of the lighting caused loitering, noise and other impacts was speculative and not evidence to consider. The court gave credence to the testimony which the neighbors reported as their eyewitness testimony. Here, the plaintiff has argued in opposition to the many observations of the neighboring properties or businesses that the disruptive conduct such as, panhandling, drug use, drug sales, loitering, peeking in windows to their homes, using their bushes and yards as their toilets is not to considered in the deliberation as true or proven. The plaintiff challenges the public to satisfy the standards of evidence that are part of atrial and not an administrative proceeding such as here. It is not whether the reports or testimony satisfy a stringent rule of introduction of evidence but the consideration is the believability or credibility of the testimony presented in a public hearing, the commission is entitled to hear all of the testimony including the claims of adverse impact to the public health, welfare and safety. The Commission in this application had significant testimony from opposition as well as the presenters 15and had a reasonable basis to give credence to some if not al ofthe testimony as noted in their decision. The comments of the commission about the responsibility to consider all evidence and opinions as noted in their decision demonstrates their open mindedness and valid motives in reviewing the proposed amendment in the application. The court looks to the reasons enunciated by the commission in denying the amendment. However, the court will first look to the general claim of the plaintiff that there was a pretextual reason and basis for overturning the decision. ‘The plaintiff contends that the Commission had already determined the outcome and had a decision prepared by their staf to deny the petition before the hearings were completed. This allegation is not only a mischaracterization but misleading and baseless as demonstrated within the public hearing records. In arguing this claim, the plaintiff indicates that the defendant had a draft of the denial of the application prepared and ready to go without the completion of the application hearing or ussion by the commissioners which in and of itself demonstrates that the Commission was prepared to deny and not consider the application in an unbiased fashion. The basis of this rationale is not supported by the record of the hearing and the statements of commission members. In fact, this is incorrect and a mischaracterization of the tasks of Commission staff. Ms. Calitro was directed to assist in addressing a n. At the November 28, 2021 hearing, the Commission zoning application presented to the Commi indicated that they wanted her to prepare a sample draft resolution to our positive or negative consensus... At any point a commissioner can make a motion on that resolution, either as it existed from Ms. Calitro or in a new modified state that will include reasons added to the motion. (Emphasis. Added.) (ROR 45 p. 9-10). At the time of the discussion, the commission members asked if Ms. Calitro had prepared draft resolutions for the application. Before, providing a draft, Ms. Calitro stated, “I just want to say for the record, that not having had any input prior to your request that we do that, we kind of, | looked at the things considered when | drafted both resolutions were both the same. looked at about eight points, and | looked at them in positive and in the negative sense. So, |just wanted to get that on the record, because | didn’t have the benefit of knowing what your discussion was, And again. ‘we can go back through it and modify it.” (Emphasis Added.) (ROR 45, at 71}. With this caveat the commission members reviewed the ten reasons which were given to them as a draft and were requested 3 In the reasons for the denial of the application #8, the Commission specifically references the testimony provided at the public hearing and the opinion as to the believabilty 16‘to comment, make changes or edits. This procedure is not unusual when acting on any application. At ‘the conclusion of the review there was also discussion as to whether the commission members should review the draft prepared for an approval of the application. (ROR 45). Therefore, the plaintif’s argument that this process tainted the denial as demonstrating a pretextual denial is not factually correct. Additionally, the plaintiff ignores the number of political figures and officials who wrote in support of the application. Mayor Cavo of Danbury, Probate Judge Yamin who was the Chairman of Danbury Homeless plan, Sheila Mosquera-Bruno, the Commissioner of DOH, Rober Botelho from DOH, and some state representatives supported and advocated for approval. There was also the knowledge the DOH allocated an enormous amount of grant money to purchase the property without having the approval. When asked about the plans if the application was not approved, the plaintiff stated there was ‘no Plan B. (ROR 45, at 35). What pressures this also placed upon the Commission in knowing that the funds may have been provided for a failed attempt to begin this social imperative as they defined it. ‘The political pressure on the commissioners, if there was any, came from those advocating in favor as well as the opposition who were simply members of the public that argued that their health, safety and welfare were negatively and directly impacted by the amendment. However, the statements made by the commission members recognizing their duty as commissioners at the final meeting for reviewing and deciding the petition negate the pretextual claim by the plaintiff. ‘Thus, this court proceeds to review the reasons for denial. Based upon the general standards as set forth above, the court exal nes the reasons in support of the denial of the amendment to determine if, any one of the reasons is sufficient to support the denial, C. The Reasons for the Zoning Denial The Commission outlined 10 separate reasons for the denial of the amendment. In reviewing the ten reasons in support of the denial, the court is cognizant of its’ limited authority to determine if the reasons provided are reasonably supported by the record. If any one of the reasons is found to support ‘the denial, the court must find there is a basis to justify the denial. Primerica v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 85, 96, 558 A.2d 646 (1989). ‘The plaintiff implores the court to find that the reasons and opposition testimony provided are baseless and illogical as well as “reprehensible.” Thus, the plaintiff requests that the court view the application without giving deference to the testimony and evidence in opposition but find that the v7plaintiffs intention to address the social issue of homelessness is significant enough to ignore the consistent testimony about the impacts of the establishment of this “new use” and instead that the blame for any of the negative impacts are the result of the pandemic. In fact, although the plaintiff continually argues that the opposition does not satisfy the burden of connecting the many incidents relayed to the Commission, it places the disruptive and criminal conduct outlined by neighbors on the pandemic which it argues increased panhandling and criminal conduct across the State and nationwide with thousands of households experiencing lost employment and income, eviction, or threat of it and food and medical care insecurity. (Plaintiff's brief at 41). The Commission made its decision based upon its review of the hours of testimony and submission of overwhelming documents from the applicant, its’ supporters and the individuals in opposition to the amendments, The court cannot determine the validity based upon its concerns, opinions or analysis of credibility but as noted above must be guided by the reasons enunciated in the decision to deny the amendment, The presentation for the amendment to the zoning regulations has been a very contentious and heated from the individuals in favor and against the petition. The Commission expressed respect for those who have proposed the new use while also listening to the claims from opposition that the use would be detrimental to them and their families as well as businesses in the surrounding area, There is no doubt that in the reasons for denial, the Commission recognized that the plaintif is interested in doing whatever is necessary to convert what was once a motel to a new concept of a homeless shelter and other services which will serve the needs of many. However, on the other hand, it recognizes that the establishment of this shelter must also be viewed from the perspective of the neighboring properties, individuals and businesses who are also entitled to the protection of the zoning regulations. The plaintiff paints the neighbors as “reprehensible” for their opposition including extensive testimony. The testimony of all of the speakers is the key to the final denial with ten separate reasons provided by the Commission. Looking at the reasons, this court finds that many of the reasons provided are supported by the record. In particular, reasons 1, 2, and 3 (also similar to the rational and evidence relating to reasons 4, 7 and 8) provide a valid support for the denial of the amendment. The court also finds that the reasons expressed in numbers 5 and 7 are supported by substantial testimony in the public records. However, the court does not find that reasons for number 6 and 9 are supported by the record 18and number 10 is not relevant as a reason for denial."* Thus, as noted below, the Commission had a valid reason(s) for the denial as determined by this court’s review of the reasons below. ‘The First, Second and Third reasons for the denial of the amendment can be addressed together because the testimony at the public hearing addressed a number of these concerns together and as such they are interrelated. The reasons state: 1)"The addition of the new use in Section 28. entitled “Transitional shelter for the homeless” with the specific requirements is unacceptable as the use creates @ facility that allows emergency shelter beds in an amount greater than 20 beds, which is the maximum number of beds the City has consistently allowed in uses defined as a shelter for the homeless in the C-CBD and RH-3 Zoning Districts.” 2) Based on the list of existing uses contained within the zoning regulations and commensurate definitions, there is no necessity to add the new use as proposed. A shelter for the homeless is already currently defined.” and 3) A shelter for the homeless is already permitted by grant of special exception in both the C-CBD and RH-3 zoning districts. The commission finds sufficient land area exists within those two zones to locate a shelter for the homeless as currently defined and regulated.” ‘The plaintiff contends that these reasons are disingenuous because at the time the shelters were not operating because of the health impacts of COVID, and even if there was a use in either a C-CBD or RH-3 zone it contains many requirements for the operation. The plaintiff argues there was no evidence whatsoever to support the 20 beds as a limit in the city or that such limit has any proper purpose for zoning use considerations. Whether the 20 bed limit is proper is not an issue for challenge by the plaintiff at this point in time. No one has raised an issue or legal challenge to the 20 bed limit which is part of the zoning regulations attached to the special exception for a homeless shelter. Putting that aside, the transcripts contained multiple references to the 20 bed limit. (See ROR 48 and ROR 11). Additionally, there was opposition testimony from Councilman Chianese, Dr. James Nolan and Beth Cavagna, the Director of Planning for the Town of Bethel that Danbury has provided for shelters that serve the homeless and satisfy the needs. In this regard, reason 10s simply the definitional section which is unnecessary as a result of the denial of the amendment and as such is not a reason in support of the denial 19The record before the court indicates that at the time of the application for this new use, the city was permitting limited operation of some of the facilities. Dr. Nolan presented a letter outlining the various shelters in Danbury and praising the city for the support. (ROR 11).5 Councilman Chianese testified that there are a number of small facilities which reopened including Amos House which operates a 14 bed transitional facility, New Street and Elm Street facilities and the Women’s Center, (ROR Nov. 16 at 173-178). Additionally, there was testimony from Lisa Koeppel, Beth Cavagna, and Councilman Chianese that the smaller facilities in the downtown area provides a nexus to needed care and are a better way to operate the homeless shelters. (ROR 42 Sept, 28, at 239-241; ROR 43-44, Nov. 9 and 19, 119-20). The downtown area provides places for the individuals in the shelter to frequent during the day or to receive services, if necessary. The location of 3 Lake Avenue Extension is isolated from all of the facilities in the downtown, such as.a library, social service offices, small restaurants or fast food facilities, clothing stores or organizations that aide in clothing and feeding the homeless, doctors, therapists, transportation and the multitude of businesses which would operate in the populated downtown of any thriving city The testimony of operators of the smaller facilities expressed the rationale that the use of smaller facilities does not over burden one neighborhood and places the facility in an area that contains the businesses and care needed by the residents such as banks, restaurants, stores, mass transit, sidewalks, libraries and medical offices which are easily accessible to the residents of the homeless shelter. The testimony of the Director of Planning from the Town of Bethel that her father was homeless in Danbury offers a real prospective on the needs and methods for success of the homeless. (ROR Nov. 9, 119-20}. ‘As to the number of beds provided, the Commission received comments by those in opposition about the reason for limiting the number of beds to permit the existence of the facility without overburdening a neighborhood. (ROR 42, Sept. 28, at 166-67 and 203). Contrary to the defendants’ comments, the zoning regulations Sec. 4.0.5(h) (2) provides that “each shelter shall not exceed 20 beds per lot” (ROR 48, Sec. AD). Additionally, the testimony of numerous speakers refers to the 20-bed threshold. The Danbury Zoning Regulation provides, “the maximum number of beds shall not exceed 20 per lot.” (ROR » He states that the existing shelters/transitional housing facilities which have and are operating in the Danbury ‘Community: Amos House, Harmony House (Shelter of the Cross), Vet House | and Il, MCCA\s Sunrise Terrace, ‘Women’s Center of Greater Danbury (new/old), Family and Children’s Aid (West Harmony St.) and Jericho Facilities on Maple Avenue. .." (ROR 11). 2048, Sec. 40.5}.3). Lastly, the correspondence from Dr. Nolan outlines the number of beds and the numbers of total beds suggested by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. He states that the local homelessness is 8.5 per 10,000 population. Based on Danbury’s population being about 84,000, this translates to (8.5 times 8.4) 71 beds to meet Danbury’s homeless population, and the present shelters more than meet the need with 80 beds. (ROR 11). Thus, the first reason is substantially supported by the record ‘The second and third reasons are also related to the necessity and existence of homeless shelters. The plaintiff argues that these reasons ignore that the pandemic caused a need for a non-dormitory style shelter. Prior to March 2020, no one imagined such a devastating health emergency impacting all aspects of life. Not only homeless shelters, but the pandemic impacted most other daily activities or life events including but not limited to closure of all personal businesses, any medical facilities from offices to hospitals to nursing homes, schools, judicial operations, grocery stores, gyms, hotels, restaurants, mass transit, religious services, entertainment venues and events, and even funerals or burial services. However, the pandemic is not a basis to change every aspect of our everyday lives. The plaintiff argues in their brief in support of the appeal that, the acquisition of a site which is a new model of a 24-hour facility continuing both emergency beds and permanent housing units with on-site re-housing services was not just a better way, but the future way and a public health and social imperative.” (Emphasis Added.) The plaintiff is certainly correct that changes may be beneficial but that is not the purpose of zoning. A regulation that may have some beneficial effect will not, ipso fact, be considered valid and consonant with the general welfare but, rather inquiry must also be directed toward whatever detrimental effects a particular regulation has. A regulation that has some relationship to promoting the general welfare or some subset of that concept, such as public health, safety property values or any of the declared purposes set out in the enabling act in § 8-2, would be valid if it does not at the same time promoted general results that are contrary to the general welfare. “Where, however, a zoning [regulation], in addition to promoting legitimate zoning goals, also has effects contrary to the general welfare, closer scrutiny of the [regulation] and its effects must be undertaken.” Home Builders League of South Jersey, Inc. v. Township of Berlin, 81 NJ. 127, 139, 405 A.2d 381 (1979). The pandemic is not a basis to create an expanded new use in a zone without satisfying the public health, welfare and safety considerations for the zone. This is even a stronger concern when the use to a lesser extent but still an 2aoperating homeless shelter has been permitted in two zones within the city. There was no testimony that the shelters that have been operating in the C-CBD and RH-3 zoning districts were at the time of the pandemic or with the ending of the emergency needs established by the pandemic unable to provide the intended services. At the public hearing, the plaintiff admitted that the pandemic orders were likely to end. At the time of the hearings, the expiration date was a February 2022 date. (ROR 42). The opposition as noted above discussed the operation of a number of facilities and there was absolutely no evidence or testimony that the city was prohibited from re-opening and operating the homeless facilities as they were operating pre-pandemic. There was testimony about Amos House and small shelters that are operating including Women’s Center and New Street and Elm Street. (ROR 44 at 173-178). The pandemic did not change the number of needed beds nor the zoning districts which permitted the use by special exception. In fact, the testimony of the facility manager of Pacific House at the September 28 hearing confirmed that there were no more than 60 people in the facility at night. The letter of Dr. Nolan indicated that the facilities in Danbury were able to meet the need with 80 beds, although the National Alliance to End Homelessness set the necessary number at 71. (ROR 11). Thus, the City of Danbury has satisfied the need for the homeless. A homeless shelter was not a permitted use in the CA-80 zone in March 2020 and the shelter during the pandemic functioned in the same manner as the numerous homeless shelters which were operating and still can operate in the C-CBD and RH-3 zones. Although the plaintiff was permitted to present any information they chose, they did not present any information during the hearing that the City of Danbury and/or non-profits were not operating homeless shelters if permitted. Additionally, there was no testimony or evidence that the city would not permit a properly regulated homeless shelter to operate at the expiration of the executive orders by the Governor. The plaintif’s statements to the Commission that this is the facility of the future does not require the Commission to permit an amendment in a zone that has the difficulties expressed by the opposition, is not a necessary facility, and will negatively impact the public health, welfare and safety. ‘Thus, the second and third reasons are substantially supported by the testimony and evidence in the record ‘The fourth reason for the denial states: “As to the similarity of the proposed use with existing uses in the CA-80 Zone, the proposed new use is not comparable to uses already allowed, as permitted or by special exception, in said Zone.” 2‘The plaintiff argues that the use proposed is not materially different than a motel, hotel or adult day care. (ROR 42, 9/28 at 61). The Super 8 motel has operated on the property for transient occupancy. ‘The plaintiff espouses the view that the addition of protocols and rules to the homeless and the allowance of supportive services for the “permanent housing units are not a material change.” ‘The defendant argues that for a number of reasons, the Commission properly found that the proposed use of a transitional homeless shelter in the CA-80 zone is not similar to the existing use of a motel. ‘The plaintiff makes every effort to have the Commission believe that the change has no negative impact on the uses in the area because it is simply individuals who are sleeping at the motel as guests would uring the operation of the motel. However, the testimony and the evidence in the record of the public hearings did not support this analysis. The use proposed by the plaintifis an all-inclusive life support for individuals who need medical assistance, psychological assistance, food and life support services in order to exist. The use also includes an element of affordable housing units within the facility that was not clearly defined except to double in population the number of people housed in the facility. In order to provide these services, the plaintiff provided testimony at the hearing that protocols such as a curfew of 9 p.m. and a zero tolerance policy for alcohol and drug use at its facilities would be in place. (ROR 9/28, 71-76) Counsel also explained that there would be in-house security personnel who can cal for police assistance. (ROR 42). However, as the public hearings continued, the applicant discussed the presence of round the clock surveillance and a metal detector at the door with ongoing perimeter checks. (ROR 42 9/28 at 83-83). The curfew would, contrary to the plaintiff's statements, leave individuals without entry to the motel and thus, left to fend for themselves in this adjoining neighborhood with families and businesses. This is not a motel with a room and key access at all times. Access is governed by the compliance with the rules and security measures of the shelter. The operation also includes supportive services which are not specifically defined in the proposed regulation. in fact, the regulation is very broad in this description stating, “The facility shall contain offices for supportive services including but not limited to social and case management services, counseling, and similar programs and supportive services provided by the non-profit or City to enable individuals experiencing homelessness to transition to permanent housing and self-sufficiency. All supportive ul and emergency shelter rooms within the facility shall qualify as affordable housing within the meaning of CGS Section 8-30g as follows: supportive 23units shall be restricted in occupancy to persons or families identified as family units within the meaning of CGS Section 8-30g.” (ROR 6 Sec. 2 Definitions). However, it was suggested that the services may be available to many people in addition to homeless residents. This is an unspecified use which is not within a guest service available to hotel guests. The proposed regulation indicates that the restrictions for supportive units would be submitted with the application for a special exception and thus the ‘Commission is in the dark as to what is really happening within the facility under this amendment. How can the Commission find itis similar or comparable without full disclosure? ‘The plaintiff also indicated that it will require all guests who enter the facility be subject to a metal detector or search for drugs or alcohol. This very policy would force any residents who are using alcohol or drugs to remain outside the premises so that the alcohol or drugs could be consumed. Thus, even the perimeter checks will do nothing more than move those using the alcohol or drugs to move away from the property to avoid the outside patrol. Thus, the security provided by the facility is not the same as a security officer checking the parking lot to be sure cars are not stolen or vandalized or the guests not subject to criminal activity. This policing, video surveillance, metal detectors and search policies are much closer to the operation of a correctional institution than to a homeless shelter. There is inside and outside security to oversee the conduct of the residents in the shelter as compared to protecting motel guests themselves with some type of security. Therefore, even perimeter patrols and added security may not prevent the influx of homeless resident to the adjoining neighborhoods. * This is precisely the testimony and concerns for welfare and safety that was expressed by many in opposition, ‘This operation and the many security measures are not comparable to the motels in Danbury nor the use of a motel in general. Thus, the fourth reason for denial is substantially supported by the record The fifth reason for the denial discusses the addition of units for affordable housing. It states: “While the Petition presented an opportunity to add affordable units to the City’s inventory of affordable © The plaintiff argues that the testimony of the neighbors cannot be utilized to make findings of trespass, or other ‘acts which have been described as impacting the quality of life for theses residents. The residents provide very detailed descriptions of events that have occurred only since the opening of the homeless shelter. The Commission hhad the opportunity to listen to the many speakers, to examine the documents and photographs and determine what is reasonable, 24housing for the purposes of the Affordable Housing Appeals List and any related moratorium application, the benefit of the addition of units gained as part of a ‘Transitional shelter for the homeless’ is. outweighed by the intensity of the use permitted by the Petition and its adverse effects in the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods.” ‘This reason refers to the Affordable Housing aspect of the program although the application does not clearly enunciate this use as part of the application for the zone. The plaintiff argues that the Affordable Housing units are a “benefit” of permitting the transitional homeless shelter. Benefit is not a consideration for a zoning amendment. As noted above, a benefit is not always commensurate with the general welfare of the public. See, Home Builders League of South Jersey, Inc. v. Township of Berlin, supra, 81 N.J. 127. The issue is whether the public health, welfare and safety are impacted. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, the court is at a lost to find this is relevant to the application or the appeal. The record as to the impact or benefit indicates clearly that the City of Danbury does not require additional affordable housing units to satisfy its state requirement of 10 percent. The denial states that the benefit is “outweighed by the intensity of the use permitted by the Petition and its adverse effects in the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods.” The decision correctly recognizes that the addition of these units places a greater impact on the surrounding area because obviously the greater number of residents (and possibly families which could include children?) can be housed without support in the area for shopping, medical needs, educational, recreation, or simple transportation to areas within the city with almost twice the number of people living in an area intended for short term stays and not as a living arrangement. However, the plaintiff has not provided facts to adequately determine the specifics of the use. The plaintiff almost ignores this use but the opposition on a number of occasions expressed concern about the total number of residents in this facility. The opposition has provided a great deal of testimony about various incidents, impacts, and safety concerns with 48 homeless units but have expressed more concern for a number reaching as many as 172 individuals who will be part of the facility: The opposition has not addressed with any particularity the claimed impact. ‘The public hearing contains testimony or exhibits that clearly indicate the affordable housing criteria The plaintiff takes Issue with these numbers but they are the specific numbers included in the regulations they submitted for the amendments 25has been satisfied by the City of Danbury. Dr. Nolan states that the city has over 3,200 homes that are classified affordable in accordance with the state mandate. There is no basis to require more affordable homes. The combination of a homeless shelter additional affordable housing units is at this time a mystery. The record does not include any specific facts that demonstrate what impact, if any, affordable housing units will have on the surrounding units. The Commission reasonably could find that it makes sense that more units more need and thus the intensity concern. Thus, the fifth reason has substantial support for a reason for denial. The sixth reason for denial states: “The Zoning Commission acknowledges that the Planning Commission on September 21, 2021, issued a positive referral on the Petition finding that, among other reasons as noted in said correspondence, the Petition was consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development (“POCD”)” This reason simply repeats what has been provided to the Commission as part of the application review but there is no legal requirement that the Commission must approve the petition because it was a positive referral. The Commission is simply acknowledging one of the reviews for the process of an amendment to the zoning regulations. Additionally although, introduced as the Planning Commission review, the Commission must address all of the testimony and exhibits and determine if the evidence with the plan merits an approval. Thus, the reason is not such that it would support a denial of the petition. The seventh reason for the denial states: “The Zoning Commission has considered the consistency of the Petition with the policies and recommendations of the POCD as required pursuant to CGS Section 8 3{b) and the Zoning Regulations and finds that while aspects of the Petition are consistent with recommendations of the Housing Plan section of the POCD, the use as proposed is dissimilar to and incompatible with existing uses in the general and limited commercial zone as identified on the Land Development Plan map for the parcels within the CA-80 Zone:" ‘This reason has already been addressed in reason #4 for the denial as noted above and that argument supports this reason for denial The eighth reason for denial states: “Notwithstanding correspondence and testimony in support of the Petition, credible testimony from the residents in the vicinity of the existing emergency shelter at 3 Lake Avenue Extension, operated by Pacific House under an Executive Order issued by the Governor of the State of Connecticut, support concerns that establishment of a permanent transitional shelter facility 26as could be established if the zoning amendments are approved, may result in detrimental impacts to ‘the public health, welfare, and safety of the residents and businesses of the surrounding area and could decrease property values. While the commission does not question the sincerity and dedication of the petitioner, it’s representatives and proponents of the amendments, the commission finds more credible the evidence as submitted by surrounding area business and property owners that demonstrates the adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare already experienced with the Pacific House’s current operation of the shelter and is not persuaded by the petitioner's promises that the adverse effects will not continue in the future.” This reason is perhaps the most controversial of the reasons for denial. It is the lynchpin of the denial not only because of the number of individuals who testified in opposition but because of the negative comments by plaintiff which lack any understanding or sincerity as to the concerns of the neighbors or residents who abut this property. As noted above, the plaintiff has challenged all of the testimony or evidence which was introduced at the public hearings because they claim itis speculative and unconnected to the establishment of a homeless shelter. This is overwhelmingly rejected by the Commission. As stated above, the court recognizes that the Commission is the authority for determining which facts are to be believed and which facts are untruthful or untrustworthy, The public hearings had not only petitions in support of and in opposition to the petition but also significant testimony from the neighbors and community leaders who provided specific reasons and encounters that caused the opposition. The defendant in the memorandum in opposition to the appeal provided a summary of witnesses and their testimony which the court reviewed as part of the record. The ‘Appendix to the memorandum provides an accurate analysis of some but not all of the testimony. Contrary to the plaintif’s representations that the testimony in opposition was mere speculation, hearsay and guesswork that the conduct described was caused by the residents of the shelter, the Commission heard the following testimony as to what residents have actually seen, heard, or experienced themselves since the establishment of the homeless shelter.* At the public hearing on September 28, 2021, there were six residents who provided specific instances of their experience. Amy 2 There are more instances of conflicts noted with the shelter residents but for purposes of this appeal, the court has limited the examples to those who may have included first-hand contact or observations. This is not to say the Commission members were not influenced by other speakers but for purposes of this appeal, the testimony noted substantially supports the Commission's decision. 7Kuhn testified that she saw residents at the hotel outside with a bonfire and having what appeared to be a party behind the Super 8 motel. (Emphasis Added); Stephen Marquardt states “For well over a year, | have witnessed the extreme negative impact to the Lake Avenue Extension and Mill Plain Road. He stated that he witnessed negative impacts, panhandling, loitering, drug sales and police and EMT calls in the area. (Emphasis Added) (ROR 42 at 117); Donald Woodin stated for a year and a half, he personally and routinely witnessed loitering, picnicking behind the Gulf Station and panhandling. He has witnessed police cars handling an incident at Super 8 driveway (Emphasis Added) (ROR 9); John Anthony states there are no sidewalks, no grocery store, library, or parks for the residents of the shelter. Wendy DaCosta stated she witnessed residents loitering. Jeff Berlin states he sees the parents now sitting in the cars for kids at the bus stop and he has pictures of residents going through the trash cans. He personally saw someone defecating in his neighbors’ bushes. Patrick Helon has witnessed drug activities at the Gulf Station and McDonalds. (Appendix 1, Sept. 28). The November 9, 2021 hearing also included opposition that noted what they experienced or saw. There were at least four individuals who provided this specific testimony. Dan Kelly stated he was approached by a man at the liquor store. Diana Clark stated she ‘witnessed people milling around and pushing shopping carts which never happened before. Luciana Shortall showed photos of people congregating in the middle of the day all the time. Cindy Doto had a series of photos she shared with the Commission. At the November 16, 2021 hearing seven people testified about experiences. Peggy Stewart and her husband were personally approached by panhandler, Richard Antous Jr. witnessed firsthand disturbing action in the par ing lot and nearby locations. Thomas Goddard stated his wife was accosted by a panhandler outside the liquor store and while driving on two occasions, she had to break hard to prevent hitting people who stepped in front of her car. These things never happened to her before the shelter was operating. Kate Dullard stated that since the opening of the shelter in January 2021, she sees drugs in plain sight while walking with her son to school. Elizabeth Mognatta stated when she drives her daughter to school, they see the people urinating and sleeping on the streets. Tom Michael, a retired Danbury Police Officer, who worked in the Housing Authority in the IMill Ridge Road office stated his office had a window above the parking lot to the Pacific House facility. He personally witnessed drug transactions and drug use, drinking, panhandling and other disturbances in and around the parking lot. When leaving work, he observed several drug transactions by shelter residents who walked from the facility into the plaza to meet with dealers. He reported crimes to the 28Danbury Police Department several times. Ms. Halas testified before the Commission at both the November 9 and November 16 public hearings. She testified as to the illegal activities in and around Pacific House. She told the Commission that while with her son at the McDonald's they saw a man in the drive-thru lane in full cardiac arrest from a heroin overdose. She called 911 and EMS who gave Narcan to the man. She repeated many incidents which were relayed to her by members of the public about panhandling and intimidation, There were many more people who spoke in opposition and provided their reason for concern but the eighteen people noted above provided the information which relates to denial as stated in # 8, The list of individuals included in Appendix 1 to the defendant's Memorandum shows overwhelming concerns about the health, safety and welfare of the ordinary citizens in the abutting residential properties. The plaintiff argued that the commission should ignore the many statements and attribute the incidents to a result of the pandemic. There is nothing presented by the plaintiff in opposition to this testimony except to challenge the validity and the trustworthiness of the citizens who appeared to object to an amendment. Given the short time of its operation, the shelter at 3 Lake Avenue Extension has generated many safety concerns that the Commission could find were not present before opening the shelter and it creates a negative quality of life issue for the very welfare of the residents and the children in the neighborhood along with the schools. Thus, the record of the public hearings provides substantial support for this reason of denial The ninth reason states: “The amendments as proposed raise the potential argument that they result in spot zoning, which is illegal in the State of Connecticut” This reason does not indicate if in fact the Commission has determined that the petition for the amendment is spot zoning, The Commission simply states it “raises the potential” During the course of the public hearing, some members of the public in opposition expressed the opinion that the change of the regulations to permit a transitional housing shelter at the Super 8 motel, in this CA-80 zone, would be spot zoning because the application applies to only this property. There are two elements to satisfy in order to make a finding of spot zoning, that is, the zone change must concern a small area of land, and second the change must be out of harmony with the comprehensive plan for zoning adopted to serve the needs of the community as @ whole. Gaida v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 108 Conn. App. 19, 32, 947 A.2d 361 (2008). However, the question arose during portions of the hearing as to whether the proposed amendment would apply to other land within the CA-80 zone in Danbury. The Planning Director, Sharon Calitro, stated in her 29review of the petition that the requirements “appear to limit the number of lots within the CA-80 Zone which could be occupied by a transitional shelter for the homeless to three (3).” (ROR 7). She then describes the properties which would be potential sites for a transitional homeless shelter, This explanation may address the question of spot zoning. However, the applicant requested an amendment to their application which would preclude any application for a homeless shelter except as to the property at 3 Lake Avenue Extension. (ROR 34). The attorney for the defendant submitted an opinion letter at the time of the public hearings which addressed spot zoning. (ROR 29). The letter provided the law as to spot zoning but did not ultimately advise the Commission that the application would be considered as spot zoning. He concluded that “a reviewing court would likely find that the text ‘amendment does not support a spot zoning challenge but that it is not significant because the ‘Commission should focus on whether the text amendment will further the comprehensive plan and promote the public health, safety and welfare.” Neither this opinion letter nor the record supports the finding that the approval of the text amendment would be spot zoning, ‘The last reason for denial by the Commission states: “As the commission is denying the amendment to define a transitional shelter for the homeless and its’ addition in the CA-80 zone, there is no necessity to amend the definition of dwelling unit or shelter for the homeless in Section 28, therefore these amendments are commensurately denied.” This is incorporated with the reasons for denial but is not addressed to a specific challenge to the proposed definitional addition. The court does not address this 2s a separate denial but as an inclusion of the request to amend the definitions within the text amendment. D. Claims of procedural and legal violations The plaintiff has also challenged the decision of the Commission based upon several claims of procedural and legal violations. The court has already addressed and found that the plaintiff’ claim that the decision was politically based is baseless. The plaintiff claims that in arriving at their decisions, the Commission failed to follow the opinions of the professional staff and the Chief of Police who wrote letters regarding the safety concerns and the police activity in the location of the Pacific House. tiff also contends that the denial improperly considered the “character” of the The pl neighborhood which is contrary to P.A. 21-29 that amended General Statute § 8-2 (d)(10} which states 30that zoning regulations “shall not. .. be applied to deny any land use application . . .on the basis of (A) a district's character, unless such character is expressly articulated in such regulation be clear and explicit physical standards for site work and structure ..” This claim is based solely on some comments by commission members during deliberations about perception and is not based upon any particular reason to deny the application, The Commission in its decisic n was concerned with the intensity of the use and adverse impacts as testified to during the hearing by numerous neighbors and business people. (See Appendix 1 referred to above). The Commission viewed the application with considerations enunciated in 8-2 for the impact, density scale, location and the consideration of the suitability ofthis use in the CA- £80 zone which as noted above is not similar to the C-CDB or RH-3 zones that consider the availability of offices, medical care, stores, libraries, public transportation and a myriad of other common necessities for every day life in the placement of a homeless shelter. Given the nature of the application and enormous factors considered by the Commission as provided by testimony in favor of and in opposition to the application, the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the denial was based upon the character as the plaintiff contends but instead was the impacts that it was considering for the public health, safety and welfare. ‘The plaintiff next argues that the Commission did not follow the letters from its’ professional staff, Ms. Calitro and Attorney Casagrande and the Chief of Police as to the question of crime in the area and the safety of the residents in the zone. “{AJn administrative agency is not required to believe any witness, even an expert." Rinaldi v. Zoning & Planning Commission, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-874331492-5 (July 6, 1990, Corradino, 1.) (2 Conn. L. Rptr. 844, 849). In Rinaldi the court found that the Commission could rely on its own knowledge in rejecting the conclusion of the plaintif’s expert. However, in doing so the court also holds that the commission has the burden of showing evidence in the record to support its decision not to believe (or follow) its expert. Hendels, Inc. v. Zoning Commission, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-17-6074096-S (January 31, 2018, Berger, 1). First of all, as to Attorney Casagrande, his memorandum to the commission does not definitively state that the instant application is or is not spot zoning. He offers the law and guidance with the following conclusion ... it is important to note that while a reviewing court would likely find that the text amendment does not support a spot zoning challenge, that does not end the mater for the Commission. The Commission must weigh the 31entire record, including the evidence submitted by the petitioner, opponents and other public speakers to determine, in the final analysis.” Thus, the Commission was left to its discretion to determine this issue and it cannot be said that the Commission did not follow his opinion. The plaintiff addresses the referral by Planning and the memorandum of Ms. Calitro which was provided to the Commission as part of her job responsibilities. Although Ms. Calitro is @ professional working to provide the Commission with her analysis of the application, she is not the final decision maker for the application. Neither Ms. Calitro or any other expert, professional or witness makes the final decision for the Commission. As stated in Rinaldi, supra, the Commission is the final decision maker even if they are provided with expert opinion to aid them in the decision-making process. The Commission must be provided with the authority to view first-hand the testimony and to weigh the testimony as against their knowledge of the regulations, the land use which will be subject to the change. tf not, then the decision maker is the expert or the professional employees who aid them in gathering the information and background to make this very decision and not the Commission reviewing, the testimony, documents and utilizing their knowledge of the land use within the city. ttis inconceivable that the Commission must unconditionally follow the advice or opinion of an employee or expert, If this was so, why have a Commission review, consider and weigh all testimony and evidence to make a decision when there is no analysis or vote that would contradict the professional recommendation. Having said this, looking at the memorandum by Ms. Calitro, itis simply comments by her as to the application and the interaction and clarification as to the impact of the change. (ROR 7}. ‘The memorandum was completed prior to the public hearing and the testimony of many members of the public and various professionals. The memorandum indicates simply that the Commission can reasonably make findings as to the Land Development Plan Map of the POCD and the Housing section of the POCD in relation to the affordable housing aspect of the project and the supportive units within the project. (ROR 7). This memorandum is one of the many considerations of the Commission in determining whether the change of zone serves the public health, safety and welfare. The Commission made findings that considered her opinions but apparently they determined what was reasonable based upon all of the testimony, exhibits and opinions of various officials. There is no basis to determine they improperly or illegally failed to follow the planning director's analysis. Lastly as to the experts, the plaintiff contends that Chief Ridenhour was an expert about the claims of 32criminal activity around the site of Pacific House and in the adjoining neighborhood. First of all, there is no basis for determining that he was before the Commission for any other reason than to provide reports and follow up on the safety of the public. He was there to provide an opinion very much like the planning director. Thus, contrary to the plaintiff's representations he is not an expert that they must follow but will certainly take all of his reports as a part of considering whether there is or is not an effect on the safety. However, given this consideration there was a great deal of confusion as to whether the Chief had provided all of the statistics for all of the areas that the opposition contends are impacted by the homeless shelter. The letter from Chief Ridenhour provided the criminal statistics from the police department based upon the area. However, at the hearing on November 16, 2021, Mr. Doto brought to the attention of the Commission that the reports did not include streets which were in the surrounding area. Mr. Doto informed the Commission that the statistics provided by the department did not include 1, 2, and 3 Lake Avenue, Mill Ridge Road, Midfield Road, School Ridge Road, which would include the Gulf Station, McDonala’s and the Plaza which surrounds the Pacific House. (ROR 44 at 77-79). Thus, the Commission was informed that the information was not complete. Additionally, the second letter from Chief Ridenhour negates his consideration as an expert and places him in the position of a messenger. The letter dated November 8, 2021, states in part: “First and foremost, every statistic that I have presented with regard to the Pacific House shelter and surrounding streets was extracted directly from ‘our Records Management System (RMS). Anyone can request the same information through Freedom of Information. | have always submitted the actual RMS printouts along with my summary reports so there is nothing to hide. With regard to the Pacific House, | have consistently stated that it is not the role of the police department to endorse or object to this project. What | have said is that the issues at Pacific House so far have been no more taxing on our resources than when the two downtown shelters were in operatior (ROR 28). This letter is a follow up to his first correspondence which gave litte information or opinions. He stated, “I cannot confirm or refute on observations or perceptions that are reported in other forums.” (ROR 24). These comments by the Chief do not provide an expert opinion and according to the Chief are just the reports. Thus, the Commission acted within its’ discretion in crediting observations of the neighbors and officials about the many criminal actions in the area of the homeless shelter. The Chief basically informed the Commission that this was for their review. In this vein, the plaintiff also claims for the first time that the Commission violated the reasonable 33accommodation to mentally disturbed individuals in violation of the FHAA. During the course of the hearing, the plaintiff did not argue that a reasonable accommodation was necessary. In fact, other than homeless, the plaintiff has not defined any particular medical or other accommodation that the Commission failed to provide, has not identified any person or person(s) that require an accommodation, or that there was a facility that was covered by the FHAA. The defendant argues that such a claim must fail because the plaintiff has not exhausted the available administrative remedies. “(In order to prevail] on a reasonable accommodation claim, the plaintiff's must first provide the government entity an opportunity to accommodate them through the entity's established procedures used to adjust the neutral policy in question. . . Furthermore, requiring plaintiffs to utilize facially neutral procedures to request an accommodation from the [relevant regulation] is not by itself a failure to unreasonably accommodate plaintiffs’ handicaps. A governmental entity must know what a plaintiff seeks prior to incurring liability for failing to affirmatively grant a reasonable accommodation... [A] plaintiff must frst use the procedures available to notify the governmental entity that it seeks an exception or variance from the facially neutral laws when pursuing a reasonable accommodation claim.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Department, 352 F.3d 565, 578-579 (2d Cir. 2003). Throughout this process, the plaintif failed to indicate at any time that a reasonable accommodation was necessary. The Commission was unable to address any such claim without knowledge of the request and a claim from the plaintiff seeking any such claim. It is speculative at this point for the court to address what accommodation, where and for whom. Thus, without first requesting a reasonable accommodation, there is no claim for a violation of the FHAA. The last legal challenge to the denial by the Commission isthe plaintif’s claim that the Commission violated P.A. 21-29 that “zoning regulations affirmatively further the purposes” of the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments and C.G.S. § 8-2 that the regulations promote health and general welfare, Although, the plaintiff admits that the language in the act has not been interpreted, it argues that it applies to this zoning application and appeal. In particular, the plaintiff argues that the “affirmatively furthering” language which has been in flux applies but then further admits that the interpretation of this aw is not clear and would be an area of first impression. The plaintiff glosses over the facts which apply to the background of this petition, The application which was submitted to the Commission 34indicates that the applicant is seeking a new use and new model for the housing of homeless. The City of Danbury as has been stated above satisfies the number of beds that are required based upon the population of the city. In fact, the numbers in the record indicate that the city of Danbury has prior to the pandemic supported facilities in two separate zones with 80 individuals, nine more than are required by the State. Additionally, the record reflects that during the pandemic there were on an average 60 individuals utilizing the services at the Super 8 motel. There was no evidence presented during the public hearings that would lead to the conclusion that the City of Danbury would not maintain the required number of beds once the Executive Orders were lifted. Thus, the plaintiff's inferences and assumptions that the city is not “affirmatively furthering” the purposes of the FHA is factually incorrect as to the homeless shelters in the city. So too, are the allegations that the city is violating the Act as a result of the denial which will not permit the use of a portion of the property for affordable housing in the city. Once again, the City of Danbury has satisfied the law in regard to the 10 percent criteria for affordable housing units. Many of the leaders in addressing the application by the plaintiff affirm the city’s commitment to housing and affirmatively taking steps to address the concerns to highly vulnerable groups as mandated by the FHA. Other than the claims made in this appeal, the plaintiff did not make these arguments to the ‘Commission other than discussing as an aside the affordable housing units that would be a “benefit” to the city. ¥ The ciaim pursuant to the FHA is that the Commission engaged in discriminatory action to prevent homeless and others from obtaining shelter. Nothing is further from the truth based upon the record of the Commission as to the reasons for the denial and the record of the City of Danbury as to its § commitment to housing. The public hearings of the Commission addressed the requirements of C. 8-2. There was overwhelming testimony and exhibits for both the applicant and the individuals in opposition to the amendment. The Commission in its reasons for denial discussed the substantial evidence as to the impact of public health, safety and general welfare. As noted above, there was substantial support for findings that the amendment would have a deleterious impact on the residents.”° * itis also noted that in the application for the amendment, the plaintiff does not discuss the Affordable Housing units that they represented will be part of the use of the facility. Therefore, the units were not addressed by the ‘opposition except to state that the 172 individuals utilizing this facility would be too intense and overuse. * The court will not recite all of the testimony and exhibits but refers to the record noted in the court's opinion above addressing the reasons for the denial 35,This finding was based upon very candid testimony as to what had been occurring in the area since the Executive Orders of the Governor permitted the temporary housing for the homeless at the Super 8 motel. Thus, the plaintiff contends that the court must look at the statute as requiring protection of the homeless and thus usurping the authority of the Commission to exercise their discretion for proper zoning that protects the public as a whole and not one group. If this was so, the Commission need not conduct public hearings. This is not and cannot be the interpretation of the statute. Thus, the Commission properly acted within its legislative discretion pursuant to C.G.S. § 8-2 and did not violate the purposes of the Fair Housing Act or the mandate to promote public health and general welfare. CONCLUSION Based upon the above discussion, it was clear that the City of Danbury Zoning Commission acted clearly and rationally when it heard the extensive testimony and reviewed the multitude of evidence submitted by all parties. The record in this appeal contains substantial evidence on which the Commission could have relied, in finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the application for ‘an amendment to the Danbury regulations for the CA-80 zone would promote the public health, safety and welfare for the residents of Danbury. The Commission's reasons, numbers 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 7 and 8 for the denial of the amendment are substantially supported by the record and demonstrates that the Com ion properly applied its discretion in reviewing all of the testimony, evidence and the legal interpretations submitted during the public hearings. The court does not find that the Commission violated the law as to the procedures in that if failed to follow expert opinions or that the Commission was politically pressured to deny the application. Additionally, the court does not find that the Commission acted illegally in applying C.G.S. § 8-2, the Fair Housing Act relating to P.A. 21-29 or accommodations for disabilities pursuant to FHAA. ‘The decision of the Danbury Zoning Commission is Affirmed, ‘THE COURT #498420 Brazzel-Massaro, JT.R. 36