Court Opinion

ID: 9652783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:31:57.746749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:54.074768
License: Public Domain

SCHALLER, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the phrase “medical, dental or similar health-oriented” offices in chapter 60, article X, § 60-10.1 (B) of the New Canaan zoning regulations includes a veterinary facility. Although I agree generally with the rationale expressed in Justice Zarella’s dissent, I write separately to emphasize that the key term in the regulation is not “ ‘health-oriented’ ” standing alone, which can apply broadly to animals as *723well as humans, but “ ‘similar health-oriented’ ” which, in my view, restricts the permitted uses to human health-oriented applications. (Emphasis added.) Even if, as the majority asserts in footnote 9 of its opinion, the terms “medical” and “dental” are not strictly limited to human health purposes (although it would be unusual to refer to an office for animal dentistry), medical and/ or dental offices for veterinary purposes certainly are not similar to human health care facilities in common parlance and understanding. I believe that a reasonable interpretation of the language of the regulation indicates that it is restricted to health-oriented offices for the care of humans. See ATC Partnership v. Coats North America Consolidated, Inc., 284 Conn. 537, 545, 935 A.2d 115 (2007) (“[i]n construing a statute, common sense must be used and courts must assume that a reasonable and rational result was intended” [internal quotation marks omitted]).
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.