special permit or special exception in Connecticut

2000(ROR, Item 001, Attachment.) CT Page 5842 "Zoning commissions are [statutorily] required to provide adequate published notice of a public hearing to be held on an application or request for a special permit or special exception." Nazarko v. Zoning Commission, 50 Conn. App. 517 , 519 , 717 A.2d 853 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 940 , 723 A.2d 318 (1998). "[T]his court has held that the purpose behind the notice requirement of § 8-3 is fairly and sufficiently to apprise those who may be affected by the proposed action of the nature and character of the proposed action so as to enable them to prepare

1999All decisions on such matters shall be rendered within sixty-five days after completion of such hearing. . . .” (Emphasis added.) “Zoning commissions are required to provide adequate published notice of a public hearing to be held on an application or request for a special permit or special exception. . . . [T]his court has held that the purpose behind the notice requirement of § 8-3 is fairly and sufficiently to apprise those who may be affected by the proposed action of the nature and character of the proposed action so as to enable them to prepare intelligently for the hearing.” (Citation o

2000(ROR, Item 001, Attachment.) CT Page 5842 "Zoning commissions are [statutorily] required to provide adequate published notice of a public hearing to be held on an application or request for a special permit or special exception." Nazarko v. Zoning Commission, 50 Conn. App. 517 , 519 , 717 A.2d 853 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 940 , 723 A.2d 318 (1998). "[T]his court has held that the purpose behind the notice requirement of § 8-3 is fairly and sufficiently to apprise those who may be affected by the proposed action of the nature and character of the proposed action so as to enable them to prepare

2000(ROR, Item 001, Attachment.) CT Page 5842 "Zoning commissions are [statutorily] required to provide adequate published notice of a public hearing to be held on an application or request for a special permit or special exception." Nazarko v. Zoning Commission, 50 Conn. App. 517 , 519 , 717 A.2d 853 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 940 , 723 A.2d 318 (1998). "[T]his court has held that the purpose behind the notice requirement of § 8-3 is fairly and sufficiently to apprise those who may be affected by the proposed action of the nature and character of the proposed action so as to enable them to prepare

2007Under the amended statute, the zoning commission could by regulation reserve to itself or delegate to any of the other specified agencies power to grant the special permit or special exception.” Summ v. Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. 79, 86 , 186 A.2d 160 (1962); see Public Acts 1959, No. 614, § 2.

2007Under the amended statute, the zoning commission could by regulation reserve to itself or delegate to any of the other specified agencies power to grant the special permit or special exception.” Summ v. Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. 79, 86 , 186 A.2d 160 (1962); see Public Acts 1959, No. 614, § 2.

2003Schwartz v. Planning Zoning Commission , 208 Conn. 146 , 152 (1988).

2000Schwartz v. Planning Zoning Commission, 208 Conn. 146 , 152 (1988).

1994Maher v. Town Planning and Zoning Commission of Stratford, 154 Conn. 420 , 422 .] In short, the new regulations allow an additional optional use of property in 90% of the town on parcels which meet the minimum area requirement, and provided a special case is approved.

1994Maher v. Planning Zoning Commission of Stratford , 154 Conn. 420 , 422 .

2021Such regulations shall not prohibit the continuance of any nonconforming use, building or structure existing at the time of the adoption of such regulations or require a special permit or special exception for any such con- tinuance. . . .’’ Our plenary review of § 8-2 (a) discloses that it grants a municipality authority to regulate, among other things, the height, size, setbacks, and location of structures; it does not, however, grant a municipality the authority to prohibit the construction, alteration or operation of a solid waste facility within its borders. ‘‘We are con- strained to read

2021Such regulations shall not prohibit the continuance of any nonconforming use, building or structure existing at the time of the adoption of such regulations or require a special permit or special exception for any such con- tinuance. . . .’’ Our plenary review of § 8-2 (a) discloses that it grants a municipality authority to regulate, among other things, the height, size, setbacks, and location of structures; it does not, however, grant a municipality the authority to prohibit the construction, alteration or operation of a solid waste facility within its borders. ‘‘We are con- strained to read

2021Such regulations shall not prohibit the continuance of any nonconforming use, building or structure existing at the time of the adoption of such regulations or require a special permit or special exception for any such con- tinuance. . . .’’ Our plenary review of § 8-2 (a) discloses that it grants a municipality authority to regulate, among other things, the height, size, setbacks, and location of structures; it does not, however, grant a municipality the authority to prohibit the construction, alteration or operation of a solid waste facility within its borders. ‘‘We are con- strained to read

2021Such regulations shall not prohibit the continuance of any nonconforming use, building or structure existing at the time of the adoption of such regulations or require a special permit or special exception for any such con- tinuance. . . .’’ Our plenary review of § 8-2 (a) discloses that it grants a municipality authority to regulate, among other things, the height, size, setbacks, and location of structures; it does not, however, grant a municipality the authority to prohibit the construction, alteration or operation of a solid waste facility within its borders. ‘‘We are con- strained to read

2021Reyad v. Bank of New York, 549 U.S. 1265 , 127 S. Ct. 1493 , 167 L.

2021Reyad v. Bank of New York, 549 U.S. 1265 , 127 S. Ct. 1493 , 167 L.

2006Kobyluck v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 84 Conn. App. 160 , 171 n.14, 852 A.2d 826 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 923 , 859 A.2d 579 (2004).

2006Kobyluck v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 84 Conn. App. 160 , 171 n.14, 852 A.2d 826 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 923 , 859 A.2d 579 (2004).

2006Kobyluck v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 84 Conn. App. 160 , 171 n.14, 852 A.2d 826 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 923 , 859 A.2d 579 (2004).

2006Kobyluck v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 84 Conn. App. 160 , 171 n.14, 852 A.2d 826 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 923 , 859 A.2d 579 (2004).

2004Thus, in accordance with § 8-2 (a), an applicant’s obtaining of a special exception pursuant to a zoning regulation is subject to a zoning commission’s consideration of these general factors.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) A. Auidi & Sons, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 267 Conn. 192, 205-206 , 837 A.2d 748 (2004).

2004Thus, in accordance with § 8-2 (a), an applicant’s obtaining of a special exception pursuant to a zoning regulation is subject to a zoning commission’s consideration of these general factors.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) A. Auidi & Sons, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 267 Conn. 192, 205-206 , 837 A.2d 748 (2004).

2004Lurie v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 160 Conn. 295, 305 , 278 A.2d 799 (1971).

2004Lurie v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 160 Conn. 295, 305 , 278 A.2d 799 (1971).

2003Michel v. Planning Zoning Commission , 28 Conn. App. 314 , 321 (1992).

2002General Statutes § 8-3c (b) provides in relevant part that “[w]henever a commission grants or denies a special permit or special exception, it shall state upon its records the reason for its decision. . . ,” 6 See also General Statutes § 8-26e (same); Anastasi v. Zoning Commission, 163 Conn. 187, 191 , 302 A.2d 258 (1972) (affirming trial court’s sustaining of plaintiffs appeal where defendant “did not state on the record sufficient reasons to support the granting of the [special exception]”); R.

2002General Statutes § 8-3c (b) provides in relevant part that “[w]henever a commission grants or denies a special permit or special exception, it shall state upon its records the reason for its decision. . . ,” 6 See also General Statutes § 8-26e (same); Anastasi v. Zoning Commission, 163 Conn. 187, 191 , 302 A.2d 258 (1972) (affirming trial court’s sustaining of plaintiffs appeal where defendant “did not state on the record sufficient reasons to support the granting of the [special exception]”); R.

2001(See also Allied Plywood, Inc. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 2 Conn. App. 506 , 512 (1984).) A planning and zoning commission sits in an administrative capacity when acting upon a special permit or special exception request.

2000Whenever a commission grants or denies a special permit or special exception, it shall state upon its records the reason for its decision. ...” General Statutes § 8-3 (g) provides in relevant part: “Approval of a site plan shall be presumed unless a decision to deny or modify it is rendered within the period specified in section 8-7d. . . .” In Leo Fedus & Sons Construction Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 225 Conn. 432 , 446 n.7, 623 A.2d 1007 (1993), we overruled Carr to the extent that it was inconsistent with our decision there.

2000Whenever a commission grants or denies a special permit or special exception, it shall state upon its records the reason for its decision. ...” General Statutes § 8-3 (g) provides in relevant part: “Approval of a site plan shall be presumed unless a decision to deny or modify it is rendered within the period specified in section 8-7d. . . .” In Leo Fedus & Sons Construction Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 225 Conn. 432 , 446 n.7, 623 A.2d 1007 (1993), we overruled Carr to the extent that it was inconsistent with our decision there.

2000(ROR, Item 001, Attachment.) CT Page 5842 "Zoning commissions are [statutorily] required to provide adequate published notice of a public hearing to be held on an application or request for a special permit or special exception." Nazarko v. Zoning Commission, 50 Conn. App. 517 , 519 , 717 A.2d 853 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 940 , 723 A.2d 318 (1998). "[T]his court has held that the purpose behind the notice requirement of § 8-3 is fairly and sufficiently to apprise those who may be affected by the proposed action of the nature and character of the proposed action so as to enable them to prepare

2000Although the commission has no discretion but to approve an application for a special exception if the regulations and statutes are satisfied; Westport v. Norwalk , 167 Conn. 151 , 155 (1974); the special permit or special exception process is not purely ministerial.

2000Increase in Activity and the Inability of Commission to Control Uses The Fellowship takes the position that the commission's fourth reason for denial is without merit because Beit Havurah v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 177 Conn. 440 , does not restrict the authority of the commission to impose reasonable conditions on a grant of a special permit or special exception to avoid an unreasonable use of the property.

1999B "Review of zoning commission decisions by the Superior Court is limited to a determination of whether the commission acted arbitrarily, illegally or unreasonably." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Raczkowski v. Zoning Commission, 53.Conn., App. 636, 639, ___ A.2d ___ (1999) "[A] party challenging the action of a planning and zoning commission bears the burden of proving that the commission acted arbitrarily or illegally." Blaker v. Planning Zoning Commission, 212 Conn. 471 , 478 , 562 A.2d 1093 (1989) General Statutes § 8-26e provides in relevant part that [w]henever a commission grants o

1999B "Review of zoning commission decisions by the Superior Court is limited to a determination of whether the commission acted arbitrarily, illegally or unreasonably." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Raczkowski v. Zoning Commission, 53.Conn., App. 636, 639, ___ A.2d ___ (1999) "[A] party challenging the action of a planning and zoning commission bears the burden of proving that the commission acted arbitrarily or illegally." Blaker v. Planning Zoning Commission, 212 Conn. 471 , 478 , 562 A.2d 1093 (1989) General Statutes § 8-26e provides in relevant part that [w]henever a commission grants o

1999"In situations in which the zoning commission does state the reasons for its action, the question for the court to pass on is simply whether the reasons assigned are reasonably supported by the record and whether they CT Page 10592 are pertinent to the considerations which the commission is required to apply under the zoning regulations." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Irwin v. Planning Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619 , 629 , 711 A.2d 675 (1998).

1999"In situations in which the zoning commission does state the reasons for its action, the question for the court to pass on is simply whether the reasons assigned are reasonably supported by the record and whether they CT Page 10592 are pertinent to the considerations which the commission is required to apply under the zoning regulations." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Irwin v. Planning Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619 , 629 , 711 A.2d 675 (1998).

1995General Statutes § 8-3c (b) provides that "[w]henever a commission grants or denies a special permit or special exception, it shall state upon its records the reason for its decision." This requirement, however, is only directory and it is "not legally necessary that the [commission] make a formal finding of facts upon which its action was based. . . . [T]he passing of a decree is, ipso facto, a finding of fact. . . ." CT Page 13728 Perdue v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 118 Conn. 174 , 178 , 171 A. 26 (1934).

1995General Statutes § 8-3c (b) provides that "[w]henever a commission grants or denies a special permit or special exception, it shall state upon its records the reason for its decision." This requirement, however, is only directory and it is "not legally necessary that the [commission] make a formal finding of facts upon which its action was based. . . . [T]he passing of a decree is, ipso facto, a finding of fact. . . ." CT Page 13728 Perdue v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 118 Conn. 174 , 178 , 171 A. 26 (1934).

1995Mobil Oil Corp. v. Zoning Commission, 30 Conn. App. 816 , 817 n. 1, 622 A.2d 1035 (1993). "`A special permit allows a property owner to use his property in a manner expressly permitted by the local zoning regulations. . . .

1995Mobil Oil Corp. v. Zoning Commission, 30 Conn. App. 816 , 817 n. 1, 622 A.2d 1035 (1993). "`A special permit allows a property owner to use his property in a manner expressly permitted by the local zoning regulations. . . .

1992General Statutes 8-3c provides in pertinent part that "the zoning commission. . . shall hold a public hearing on an application or request for a special permit or special exception. . .," and further that "such commission shall decide upon such application or request within the period of time permitted under section 8-7d ." That section states in part that "all decisions on such matters shall be rendered within sixty-five days after the completion of such hearing." The consequence of a statute that imposes a mandatory time constraint for actions by a zoning commission is that, when the time ha

1992General Statutes 8-3c provides in pertinent part that "the zoning commission. . . shall hold a public hearing on an application or request for a special permit or special exception. . .," and further that "such commission shall decide upon such application or request within the period of time permitted under section 8-7d ." That section states in part that "all decisions on such matters shall be rendered within sixty-five days after the completion of such hearing." The consequence of a statute that imposes a mandatory time constraint for actions by a zoning commission is that, when the time ha

1992The consequence of a failure to comply with statutory pre-hearing notice requirements of a subdivision application is automatic approval, Koskoff v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 27 Conn. App. 443 (1992).