Source: https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Default.aspx?CatID=20
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 11:49:35
Document Index: 236151578

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 11', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 7', '§ 8', '§ 7', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 30']

Jan 26 2018 11:45AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=862
AC38290 - Lane v. Cashman (Zoning; "The defendants, Jeffrey S. Cashman and Patricia Cashman, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff . . . the zoning enforcement officer for the town of Clinton. The plaintiff brought the underlying action against the defendants to enforce orders to discontinue alleged zoning violations occurring at the defendants' property in Clinton. The defendants claim that the court erred in (1) striking their special defenses related to nonconforming uses and (2) granting the plaintiff's motions in limine. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Nov 3 2017 11:52AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=741
AC38889 - Griswold v. Camputaro (Zoning enforcement action; "The would-be intervenors . . . appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered when the court, Vacchelli, J., denied their respective motions to intervene that were filed pursuant to General Statutes 22a-19 (a) (1). On appeal, the intervenors claim that it was improper for the court to deny their motions to intervene on the ground that there was no pending proceeding because (1) the plaintiff and the defendants manipulated the timing of the short calendar proceedings to their detriment, (2) they were denied their vested statutory rights under 22a-19 to be heard, and 3) the stipulated judgment at issue was not rendered in compliance with General Statutes 8-8 (n). Under the somewhat unusual procedural circumstances of this case in which our rules of practice were violated, we agree with the intervenors and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court denying the motions to intervene and remand the matter for further proceedings.")
Aug 4 2017 11:46AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=602
AC38554 - Stratford v. Hawley Enterprises, Inc. (Eminent domain; "The defendant IP Media Products, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding damages to it for the taking of certain real property by the plaintiff, the town of Stratford . . . The defendant claims that the court erred in concluding that the town was entitled to recover back taxes from the condemnation award. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinions
Jul 13 2017 11:52AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=557
AC38680 - Maluccio v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Zoning appeal; "This appeal is brought by the defendant, the East Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals (board), from a decision of the trial court sustaining an appeal from the board's decision denying a building permit for a parcel of land owned by the plaintiff . . . that was designated as a 'recreation area' on an original subdivision plan. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly found that the designation of the parcel as a 'recreation area' did not preclude the development of that parcel for residential use. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. ")
AC38078 - Stones Trail, LLC v. Weston (Inverse condemnation; "The plaintiff, Stones Trail, LLC, brought this action against the defendant, the town of Weston (town), arising from its attempts to develop certain real property located in Weston, alleging, inter alia, denial of equal protection of the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; denial of procedural due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; inverse condemnation or regulatory taking of land in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and inverse condemnation or regulatory taking of land in violation of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 11, of the state constitution. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's dismissal of its claims on the basis of its determination that the lack of a final decision from the town's Planning and Zoning Commission (commission) rendered them unripe for adjudication. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Jul 6 2017 11:34AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=544
AC37281 - Santos v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Inverse condemnation; unjust enrichment; "The plaintiff, Anthony Santos, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants, the town of Stratford (town) and its Zoning Board of Appeals (board). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claims for (1) inverse condemnation and (2) unjust enrichment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Jun 21 2017 3:22PM by Zigadto, Janet
https://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.")
May 22 2017 11:34AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://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.")
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=455
May 8 2017 9:57AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://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.")
Nov 25 2016 11:19AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://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 - 8/15/2016
Aug 15 2016 12:35PM by Zigadto, Janet
https://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.")
Jul 25 2016 3:43PM by Janet Zigadto
https://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.")