## Facts

- Frito-Lay owned and operated a food-processing facility and office on industrial-zoned property in Killingly, Connecticut.
- Frito-Lay applied for a special permit and site-plan approval to construct a wood-chip-burning electric cogeneration plant, including a boiler, generator, silo, and chimney.
- The planning and zoning commission accepted the application and held a duly noticed public hearing on January 14, 1985, during which it received evidence and argument for and against the application.
- The commission chair declared the public hearing closed and deferred action to a later regular meeting.
- After closure, the commission received additional citizen comments and questioned Frito-Lay’s engineer at subsequent meetings.
- At a March 26, 1985 special meeting, the chair stated that citizen comments would “carry no weight,” yet numerous citizens spoke in opposition; Frito-Lay did not respond in reliance on the chair’s statement.
- The commission denied the application, citing lack of harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the area under applicable site-plan standards.
- The Superior Court dismissed Frito-Lay’s appeal; the case proceeded to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the commission’s failure to act within the decision period in General Statutes § 8-7d required approval or invalidated the denial, or whether the applicant waived any timing claim.
2. Whether the commission acted unlawfully by receiving substantive public input and engaging in de facto additional hearings after the public hearing was formally closed.
3. Whether the zoning regulations authorized the commission to require a special permit for the proposed cogeneration facility in an industrial district.
4. What remedy was appropriate if the process was procedurally defective.

## Decision

- The court held that Frito-Lay’s request for an extension beyond the statutory decision period waived its objection based on § 8-7d timing requirements.
- The court held that the commission acted illegally by effectively conducting additional hearings and receiving substantive public input after the public hearing had been closed, tainting the decision-making process.
- The court held that the commission could require a special permit for the proposed cogeneration plant under the zoning regulations.
- The court sustained the appeal in part and remanded to the commission for a new hearing and decision consistent with law, rather than ordering approval.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory zoning-decision time limits intended to protect an applicant may be waived by the applicant’s conduct, including requesting an extension beyond the statutory period.
- Once a zoning commission formally closes a public hearing, it may not receive new substantive evidence or conduct de facto further hearings on the same application outside lawful hearing procedures.
- Procedural defects that deny fair participation—such as receiving opposition input after closure without a meaningful opportunity to respond—can invalidate the agency’s action.
- Courts generally defer to a local zoning authority’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations, including whether a proposal requires a special permit.
- When a zoning decision is tainted by an unlawful hearing process, the typical remedy is a remand for a new, properly conducted hearing and decision, absent a statutory mandate for automatic approval.

## Conclusion

The court required a remand for a new hearing because the commission’s post-closure reception of public opposition and related inquiry constituted unlawful, multiple hearings that tainted the denial, while also holding that Frito-Lay waived any statutory timing objection and that the commission could require a special permit for the cogeneration facility.


Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Town of Killingly, 206 Conn. 554 (Conn. 1988)