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 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