The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Land Use Law

Land Use Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=517

SC19665 - Brenmor Properties, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("This certified appeal requires us to consider the relationship between a town's roadway construction standards and the more flexible treatment given to development proposals made pursuant to the Affordable Housing Appeals Act, General Statutes § 8-30g. The defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Lisbon (commission), appeals, upon our grant of its petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court sustaining the administrative appeal of the plaintiff, Brenmor Properties, LLC. Brenmor Properties, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 162 Conn. App. 678, 680, 136 A.3d 24 (2016) . . . On appeal, the commission claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that (1) the commission was required to grant the plaintiff's application for subdivision approval, despite the application's lack of compliance with a municipal road ordinance (road ordinance), and (2) the trial court properly ordered the commission to approve the plaintiff's application 'as is,' rather than remand the case to the commission for consideration of potential conditions of approval. We disagree and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=464

SC19568, SC19569 - Mayer v. Historic District Commission (Historic districts; certificate of appropriateness; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the statutory aggrievement principles of General Statutes § 8-8 extend to appeals from the decisions of historic district commissions brought pursuant to General Statutes § 7-147i. The plaintiffs, Robert Mayer and Mary Pat Mayer, appeal from the judgments of the trial court dismissing their appeals from two decisions of the named defendant, the Historic District Commission of the Town of Groton (commission), with respect to alterations to a barn located on real property owned by the defendants Steven Young and Caroline Young (applicants). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) statutory aggrievement under § 8-8 does not extend to historic district commission appeals brought pursuant to § 7-147i; and (2) they had failed to establish that they were classically aggrieved with respect to each of the commission's two decisions. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=455

SC19797 - Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc. v. Platner ("This case raises the questions of whether a conservation restriction on private property was violated by the owner of that property and, if so, whether the remedies ordered by the trial court were proper. The defendant Beverly Platner appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding legal and equitable relief to the plaintiff Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc., after concluding that the defendant had violated a conservation restriction granted to the plaintiff by a former owner of the defendant’s property. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly found violations of the conservation restriction by misinterpreting it and improperly ordered relief that was either legally unauthorized or lacking in evidentiary support. We agree with the trial court’s interpretation of the conservation restriction and its consequent finding that the defendant had violated it in multiple respects, and we see no impropriety with respect to the portion of the court’s judgment awarding the plaintiff equitable relief. We agree with the defendant, however, that the court’s award of punitive damages was noncompliant with the authorizing provision, General Statutes § 52-560a (d), and that its award of attorney’s fees, in one respect, was improper. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=438

AC38369 - Mandable v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Zoning appeal; "The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether two lot line adjustment maps were improperly recorded in the Westport land records by the defendants Norman Kramer and Karen Kramer (Kramers) because the maps qualify as 'resubdivisions,' as that term is defined in General Statutes § 8-18, and thus required approval by the defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Westport (commission) to be valid. The plaintiffs, J. Burke Mandable and Paula K. Mandable, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their request for declaratory relief and dismissing their appeal from the decision of the commission, in which the commission declined to consider their challenge to two maps that the Kramers recorded with approval from the defendant Laurence Bradley, the planning and zoning director of Westport, but not from the commission. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the Kramers were not required to obtain the commission's approval because their maps were not 'resubdivisions' under § 8-18. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=217

AC38023 - Parillo Food Group, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals ("The defendant, the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of New Haven, appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal of the plaintiff, Parillo Food Group, Inc., from the defendant's decision granting the plaintiff's application for a special exception to operate a restaurant serving liquor that imposed a condition limiting its hours of operation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that it had no authority to limit the hours of operation of the plaintiff's restaurant. Specifically, the defendant claims that the court (1) should have determined that municipal zoning boards have the authority to place temporal restrictions on special exception uses, (2) erroneously concluded that Connecticut's Liquor Control Act, General Statutes § 30-1 et seq., divests the defendant of its power to attach conditions limiting the hours of operation of restaurants that serve alcohol, and (3) erroneously concluded that the challenged condition was not integral to the defendant's approval of the special exception. We agree with the defendant's second claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")



Land Use Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=134

AC37942 - JAG Capital Drive, LLC v. East Lyme Zoning Commission ("The defendant, the East Lyme Zoning Commission (commission), appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining the administrative appeal of the plaintiff, JAG Capital Drive, LLC, from the commission's denial of the plaintiff's application for approval of a proposed affordable housing development.The commission claims that the trial court erred in concluding that it failed to meet its burden of proof in denying the plaintiff's application on the ground of the industrial zone exemption—that the proposed affordable housing development would be located in an area which is zoned for industrial use and does not permit residential uses—pursuant to General Statutes § 8-30g (g) (2) (A).More specifically, the commission claims that the trial court erred in determining that the area in which the proposed affordable housing project would be located permits residential uses. We disagree with the commission, and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff's appeal from the commission's denial of its affordable housing application.")



Land Use Appellate Court Opinion - 8/15/2016

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=72

AC37736 - Diamond 67, LLC v. Oatis (Vexatious litigation; "The plaintiff . . . appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants . . . The plaintiff sought to develop a Home Depot store in the town of Vernon that the defendants, a group of concerned citizens and their attorneys, opposed for environmental reasons. Certain defendants, allegedly acting with the support of their codefendants, thus sought to intervene in various administrative and mandamus actions between the plaintiff and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Vernon (planning and zoning commission). Thereafter, the plaintiff brought this action, sounding in vexatious litigation, claiming that the defendants' conduct in intervening or supporting other defendants' interventions in the planning and zoning actions, and their appeals from the denials thereof, had delayed it in obtaining the necessary final approval from the planning and zoning commission. The plaintiff claimed that because those appeals delayed the approval of the Home Depot development project by the planning and zoning commission until after the deadline agreed to for that purpose in the plaintiff's agreement with Home Depot, Home Depot abandoned the development project to the plaintiff's great financial loss. The trial court granted all of the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff could not establish that the defendants' actions had caused Home Depot to abandon the development project, or thus to sustain any compensable losses. The plaintiff appeals, claiming that genuine issues of material fact remain as to the causation of damages. The defendants argue that summary judgment was appropriately rendered, and raise various alternative grounds for affirmance as well. We agree with the plaintiff that summary judgment was improperly granted, and decline to affirm the court's judgment on any of the alternative grounds proposed by the defendants.")


Land Use Appellate Court Opinion

   by Janet Zigadto

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=43

AC37732 - Kobyluck Bros., LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the judgment of the trial court affirming the decision of the defendant . . . denying the plaintiffs' special permit and site plan application. The plaintiffs claim that the court incorrectly interpreted the term 'manufacturing' as used in the Waterford Zoning Regulations (regulations) to preclude the production of construction aggregate. We agree, and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")





1