11/9/2009
AC29092 Red 11, LLC v. Conservation Commission (Statutory farming exemption to town inland wetlands regulations; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed its appeals because the commission lacked jurisdiction to uphold the cease and desist orders, (2) dismissed the appeals because it misinterpreted the statutory limitations on the farming exemption contained in General Statutes § 22a-40 (a) (1) and (3) determined that there was sufficient evidence tosupport the commission’s decisions upholding the issuance of the cease and desist orders.")
AC29251 Cimino v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Denial of request for variances; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found that (1) the parcel at issue was not a preexisting, nonconforming use, (2) the variances were denied properly because there was no hardship, (3) the property is not worthless without the variances and (4) the variances were not consistent with the town’s master plan of development.")
AC30051 Curran v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Variance; hardship; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found that the record provides substantial evidence for a finding of hardship."
10/19/2009
Smith Bros. Woodland Management, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals SC18220 (Zoning appeal of cease and desist order concerning improper storage of logs and land clearing equipment; ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance with conditions precluded the plaintiff from engaging in other preexisting, nonconforming uses?’’) 10/8/2009
Fanotto v. Inland Wetlands Commission - SC18221 (Zoning; "We granted the commission’s petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court limited to the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court improperly concluded that there was adequate support in the record for the denial of the application to conduct regulated activities on the subject property?'") 9/2/2009
AC30105 Cassidy v. Zoning Commission (Application for special permit; whether the public notice published by the commission satisfied the requirements of C.G.S. §8-7d; whether shortcomings in the text of the published notice were cured by the commission's inclusion of a statement that the application was on file in the town planning office) 8/14/2009
Newman v. Planning & Zoning Commission - SC18106, SC18107 (Zoning; "whether the trial court properly concluded that the named defendant, the planning and zoning commission of the town of Avon (commission), improperly had interpreted and applied a density provision of Avon’s zoning regulations applicable to residential lots when it granted the subdivision application of the defendants Mary Markow and Eric R. Secor, Jr. (applicants).") 8/7/2009
AC29304 - Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission ("On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the commission does not have discretion to deny an application for a special permit when, as in this case, the applicant has complied with all applicable zoning regulations. The plaintiffs further contend that the court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the commission’s reasons for the denial of their application for a special permit.")
8/6/2009
Unistar Properties, LLC v. Conservation & Inland Wetlands Commission - SC18321 ("The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether the commission properly denied the plaintiff’s application for a wetlands permit as incomplete because it was missing certain information, including a sufficiently detailed wildlife inventory and an analysis of alternatives to the proposed activity. The plaintiff claims, inter alia, that, because it had established that its proposal would not result in a change to the physical characteristics of the wetlands and there was no evidence that an impact on animal species in turn could effect such a change, the commission has no authority under the governing statutes to demand such information. To the extent that the commission was entitled to such information, the plaintiff also claims that the trial court should have remanded the case to the commission so that the plaintiff could provide the necessary information.") 7/6/2009
AC29526 - Goodspeed Airport , LLC v. East Haddam ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied the plaintiff any relief for the defendant’s wrongful refusal to grant an open space classification and (2) concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to classification for additional acreage of its property as open space pursuant to General Statutes § 12-107e.")
AC29425 - Martland v. Zoning Commission (Administrative appeal; application for special permit to excavate earth materials from a portion of a pond; whether record contained sufficient evidence that berm acted as a noise and vegetation buffer; whether court improperly failed to determine that the restoration condition was integral to the approval of the application for a special permit)
AC29602 - Town of Canterbury v. Deojay (Application for permit to use wetlands for agricultural use; whether the court's decision to deny defendant's request for leave to amend their answer was an abuse of discretion; whether court improperly determined that the defendant's agriclutural use was not exempt from the regulations; whether court improperly granted an injunction against defendant's continued agricultural use of their property) 6/19/2009
Buttermilk Farms, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission - SC18244 (Administrative appeal; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the commission had not exceeded its statutory authority under § 8-25 by denying the plaintiff’s subdivision application because the plaintiff refused to include off-site sidewalks in its subdivision plan.") 6/5/2009
AC29441 - King's Highway Associates v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Whether... "the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the commission lacked authority to consider the water supply for the resubdivision and (2) substituted its judgment for that of the commission with respect to (a) a drainage plan and (b) the need for sidewalks in the plaintiff’s proposed resubdivision.") 5/6/2009Here are the land use opinions issued in April 2009:
- AC29089 Holt v. Zoning Board of Appeals
(Subject matter jurisdiction; whether zoning enforcement officer's letter was an appealable "decision" under General Statutes §8-7 and §8.10.2 of the regulations)
- AC29248 Kilburn v. Planning & Zoning Commission
("The plaintiffs, Edward Wucik, Teresa Izzarelli, Chester Sajkowicz and Shirley Sajkowicz, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their zoning appeal from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of Preston (commission) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs contend that the court improperly concluded that their complaint failed to allege a factual basis for statutory aggrievement.")
- AC29091 Wucik v. Planning & Zoning Commission
(Standing; whether court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction as a result of failure of the plaintiff's to allege a factual basis for aggrievement in their appeal to the court) 4/15/2009
Forest Walk, LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority - SC18239 ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court reviewed the defendant’s decision under an improperly deferential standard because that court failed to recognize that Public Acts 2003, No. 03-177, §13 (P.A. 03-177),changed the substantive law governing water pollution control authorities by limiting their discretion in the same manner that the legislature limited the discretion of land use boards. The plaintiff also contends that the trial court improperly concluded that the defendant’s denials of its applications were neither contrary to its regulations nor the result of arbitrary, unfair action in abuse of its discretion.") 4/3/2009
AC29350 Fedus v. Zoning and Planning Commission (Zoning & Planning Commission approved site plan application of defendant developer; "On appeal, the plaintiffs claim impropriety in the court’s upholding of (1) a footprint only approval for the largest building in the proposed site plan, (2)an approval of a drainage plan that does not conform to the relevant Colchester zoning regulations and (3) the commission’s approval of a site plan without the permits required by the zoning regulations.") 3/19/2009
Moon v. Zoning Board of Appeals (SC17921) (Zoning board appeal; variance; undue hardship; statutory construction; whether town zoning regulation §12.6 permits plaintiff to expand vertically any portion of their existing building so long as the expanded portion of the building remains within the existing nonconforming footprint; whether plaintiffs failed to establish before the board that the strict enforcement of the zoning regulations would cause them exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship.)
3/6/2009
AC29094 - Lee & Lamont Realty v. Planning & Zoning Commission
("Plaintiff first claims that it was improper for the commission to consider a memorandum from a commission member after the public hearing was closed. ....The plaintiff next claims that the commission’s decision to impose a 200 foot buffer along Interstate 84 was an abuse of its legislative authority and not supported by sufficient evidence in the record.") 2/2/2009
- AC29316 - Hescock v. Zoning Board of Appeals [Zoning: variance]
("The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) concluded that the approval of the defendants’ coastal site plan review application was supported by substantial evidence in the record, (2) concluded that the board complied with local flood zone regulations and (3) upheld the variance without substantial evidence of unusual hardship.")
1/30/2009
Gerlt v. Planning & Zoning Commission - SC18149 ("...Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. The plaintiff then brought this appeal, claiming that the trial court improperly had concluded that the general plan of development did not constitute a site plan and that the commission’s approval did not violate the applicable land use statutes and zoning regulations.")
Gerlt v. Planning & Zoning Commission - SC18150 ("...The trial court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that: (1) the town had intended to grant easements at the time of the approval; and (2) the commission lawfully had approved the general plan of development. The plaintiff then brought this appeal challenging these conclusions. The defendants claim, as an alternate ground for affirmance, that the trial court improperly determined that the plaintiff was
aggrieved.") 12/17/2008
Griswold Airport, Inc. v. Madison - SC17938 ("The primary issue before the court is whether a municipal tax assessor’s termination of an open space classification for property on the basis of its proposed use, as opposed to its current use, was proper. The outcome of this appeal turns on the proper interpretation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 12-504h, a provision that gives municipal tax assessors discretionary authority to remove open space classifications previously placed on real property within their municipalities when the use of that property has changed. See also General Statutes § 12-107e.")
- AC28682 - 109 North LLC. v. Planning Commission of the Town of New Milford (Zoning: subdivision; mandamus; automatic approval doctrine; "...whether plaintiff's motion itself constituted a motion either to approve; disapprove or modify and approve under CGS §8-26.")
- AC28767 - Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC. v. Joseph P. Ganim, Et Al. (plaintiff claims defendants' alleged contract steering scheme prevented plaintiff from completing terms of contract; whether plaintiff's amended complaint alleged an antitrust claim under CGS §35-26)
12/15/2008Heim v. Zoning Board of Appeals - SC18088 ("The dispositive issue presented in this certified appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that a veterinary clinic constitutes a 'medical, dental or similar health-oriented' facility as permitted by chapter 60, article X, § 60-10.1 of the New Canaan zoning regulations. We conclude that the trial court properly determined that a veterinary clinic falls within the town’s zoning regulations as a 'health-oriented' facility, and is thus a permitted use under the regulations.")
10/31/2008
- AC28891 Driska v. Pierce, Et Al ("[w]hether the operation of an ATV park is permitted in a residential zone located in Middletown"; "whether the permanent injunction issued by the court execeeded the scope of the relief requested by the plaintiff and the relief available through administrative remedies and the zoning regulations.")
10/3/2008
Finley v. Inland Wetlands Commission - SC18131 (Inland wetlands and watercourses; approval of permit application by defendant inland wetlands commission for construction of dairy store and restaurant on certain wetlands located on defendant developer's real property; intervention by plaintiffs in administrative proceeding pursuant to provision (§ 22a-19 [a]) of Connecticut Environmental Protection Act, alleging that proposed development of property was reasonably likely to cause pollution to wetlands; appeal by plaintiffs to trial court pursuant to provision (§ 22a-43) of Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, claiming that commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; motion to dismiss appeal on ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal under §§ 22a-43 and 22a-19 for failure to allege unreasonable impairment of environment; whether trial court's decision denying plaintiffs' appeal and sustaining commission's conditional approval of wetlands permit was appealable final judgment; whether plaintiff environmental intervenors under § 22a-19 were aggrieved by commission's decision granting wetlands permit and had standing to appeal from commission's decision under § 22a-43; whether trial court properly determined that commission's decision granting wetlands permit was supported by substantial evidence in record.)
9/4/2008
Lord Family of Windsor, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission - SC17952 (Whether Zoning Regulation Requiring Special Permit for Approval of Certain Subdivision Applications Improperly Commingles Planning and Zoning Functions and Violates Uniformity Requirement of General Statutes § 8-2; Whether Conditions on Approval of Special Permit were Improper; Whether Substantial Evidence Existed to Support Denial of Request to Alter Subdivision Plan.) 9/2/2008
Lord Family of Windsor, LLC v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission - SC17989 (Whether Zoning Regulation Requiring Special Permit for Approval of Certain Subdivision Applications Improperly Commingles Planning and Zoning Functions and Violates Uniformity Requirement of General Statutes § 8-2; Whether Conditions on Approval of Special Permit were Improper; Whether Substantial Evidence Existed to Support Denial of Request to Alter Subdivision Plan.) 8/25/2008Heim v. Zoning Board of Appeals - SC18088 (Zoning; Whether Veterinary Clinic was Properly Permitted as a "Health-Oriented Facility"; Whether Conditions Attached to Permit Were Severable.)
7/21/2008
Pond View, LLC. v. Planning and Zoning Commission - SC17878
(Zoning; standing; whether court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the intervenors have raised only procedural issues and therefore do not have standing to bring this appeal as environmental intervenors pursuant to § 22a-19; whether intervenors have standing by virtue of having filed the protest petition in accordance with § 8-3 (b), which, they contend, created a personal and legal interest in, and made them ‘‘indispensable’’ parties to, the present action) 7/9/2008
Loring v. Planning & Zoning Commission - SC17886, SC17887 [dissent] (Zoning; Whether Trial Court Improperly Substituted its Judgment for that of Defendant in Determining that Video Preview Booths Were "Customarily Incidental" to Property's Primary Use as Adult Video Store; Whether Trial Court Improperly Ordered Defendant to Approve Site Plan Application.)
6/2/2008
Rural Water Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals - SC17959 (Zoning board appeal; inverse condemnation; self-created hardship; whether defendant's denial of plaintiff's application for zoning variances resulted in hardship to plaintiff and inverse condemnation of plaintiff's property; whether evidence at trial established that plaintiff's property was virtually worthless without variances). 5/19/2008VIP of Berlin, LLC v. Berlin - SC18039 (Declaratory judgment; summary judgment; claim that locational restrictions contained in town ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses that was adopted by town council were unenforceable because they were not adopted by town planning and zoning commission pursuant to town charter; adoption of trial court memorandum of decision.) [Docket Summary] 3/20/2008
Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves - SC17826
[docket summary: Environment; Whether Plaintiff Established Standing Under General Statutes § 22a-16; Whether Court Ordered Plaintiff to Amend its Complaint so as to Deprive Court of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Whether Doctrine of the Law of the Case Applied] 2/27/2008Gibbons v. Historic District Commission - SC17846 (Historic districts; certificate of appropriateness; whether trial court correctly concluded that defendant commission's reason for its denial of plaintiff's application for certificate of appropriateness was beyond scope of commission's authority under statutory scheme governing historic districts and historic district commissions). [docket summary] 2/11/2008
The following Connecticut Supreme Court opinion was released today:
- Hackett v. J.L.G. Properties LLC - SC17871 [docket summary] (Zoning; federal preemption; whether local zoning regulations are preempted by federal power act)
SC17871 Concurrence 1/30/2008
Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission - SC17690 [Zoning; Whether Religious Group Established that Denial of Special Permit to Build Temple Violated the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and State Religious Freedom Act; Whether President of Religious Group had Standing to Maintain Action.] [docket summary] 1/22/2008
Andross v. West Hartford - SC17742 [Land Use; Standing; Mootness; Whether Trial Court Properly Ruled that Town Residents Lacked Standing to Bring Action for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Whether This Appeal is Moot due to Occurrence of Subsequent Events, Including Transfer of Property to Third Party.] [docket summary] 1/14/2008
The following Supreme Court Opinion was released today:
R.C. Equity Group, LLC v. Zoning Commission - SC17676 (Zoning appeal; motion to dismiss on basis of the plaintiff's failure to serve borough clerk as required by C.G.S. section 8-8(f)(2); whether marshal's conduct in failing to serve borough clerk constituted "default or neglect" within meaning of section 8-8(q) savings provision.) 12/24/2007Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission - SC17931 ("The principal issue in this appeal is whether a town’s historic district commission has jurisdiction over the parking lot of a private elementary school pursuant to General Statutes § 7-147d (d)." 11/13/2007
Corcoran v. Connecticut Siting Council - SC17808 (Administrative appeal; challenge to siting council's approval of application for certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for construction of wireless telecommunications tower; dismissal of administrative appeals by trial court; claim that trial court improperly concluded that statute (§ 16-50p [g]) did not limit siting council's discretion in cases wherein applicant had already acquired land for purpose of constructing telecommunications tower). |
|
|
|