special permit exception in Connecticut

1997The standard of review by this court in connection with the granting of a special permit or exception was set forth very explicitly by the Appellate Court in Mobil Oil Corporation v. Zoning Commission, 30 Conn. App. 816 , 819-20 , 622 A.2d 1035 (1993).

1997The standard of review by this court in connection with the granting of a special permit or exception was set forth very explicitly by the Appellate Court in Mobil Oil Corporation v. Zoning Commission, 30 Conn. App. 816 , 819-20 , 622 A.2d 1035 (1993).

2020The Appellate Court also concluded, however, that the town had the author- ity to regulate the nonconforming use to protect the public health, safety and welfare, ‘‘provided it is done reasonably’’; (emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted) id., 697 ; and that the special permit requirement was a reasonable regulation.

2020The plaintiff does not address the Appellate Court’s decision in Taylor v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 65 Conn. App. 687 , holding that preexisting as of right uses may be subject to a special permit requirement.

2002Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 229 Conn. 176, 177 , 640 A.2d 100 (1994).

2002Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 229 Conn. 176, 177 , 640 A.2d 100 (1994).

1999When so acting, the board's function is limited to a determination whether an applicant's proposed use is one which satisfies the standards set forth in the regulations and statutes, Kaufman v. Zoning Commission , 232 Conn. 122 , 150 (citation omitted).

1999The zoning commission has no discretion to deny the special exception if the regulations and statutes are satisfied." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Planning Zoning Commission, 46 Conn. App. 563 , 569 , 699 A.2d 314 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 936 , 702 A.2d 640 (1997) The plaintiffs have taken a "shotgun approach" to this appeal, claiming that the commission granted the special permit in violation of fifteen separate sections of the zoning regulations.

1999The zoning commission has no discretion to deny the special exception if the regulations and statutes are satisfied." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Planning Zoning Commission, 46 Conn. App. 563 , 569 , 699 A.2d 314 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 936 , 702 A.2d 640 (1997) The plaintiffs have taken a "shotgun approach" to this appeal, claiming that the commission granted the special permit in violation of fifteen separate sections of the zoning regulations.

1999The zoning commission has no discretion to deny the special exception if the regulations and statutes are satisfied." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Planning Zoning Commission, 46 Conn. App. 563 , 569 , 699 A.2d 314 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 936 , 702 A.2d 640 (1997) The plaintiffs have taken a "shotgun approach" to this appeal, claiming that the commission granted the special permit in violation of fifteen separate sections of the zoning regulations.

1999The zoning commission has no discretion to deny the special exception if the regulations and statutes are satisfied." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Planning Zoning Commission, 46 Conn. App. 563 , 569 , 699 A.2d 314 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 936 , 702 A.2d 640 (1997) The plaintiffs have taken a "shotgun approach" to this appeal, claiming that the commission granted the special permit in violation of fifteen separate sections of the zoning regulations.

1997The standard of review by this court in connection with the granting of a special permit or exception was set forth by the Appellate Court in CRRA v. Planning Zoning Commission , 46 Conn. App. 566 , 569-70 , 700 A.2d 67 (1997).

1997The standard of review by this court in connection with the granting of a special permit or exception was set forth by the Appellate Court in CRRA v. Planning Zoning Commission , 46 Conn. App. 566 , 569-70 , 700 A.2d 67 (1997).

1990Sheridan v. Planning Board, 159 Conn. 1 , 16 (1969) "The proposed use . . . must satisfy . . . the conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience and property values. . . .

1979Moreover, both cases involved local zoning regulations specifically requiring that proposed roads connect to existing roads, a factor not present in the instant case. [8] We note in passing that the rule in Lurie v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 160 Conn. 295 , 278 A.2d 799 (1971), applied in that case to exceptions and special permits, has not, since that case, ever been applied by this court to a case not involving a special permit or exception.

1979Moreover, both cases involved local zoning regulations specifically requiring that proposed roads connect to existing roads, a factor not present in the instant case. [8] We note in passing that the rule in Lurie v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 160 Conn. 295 , 278 A.2d 799 (1971), applied in that case to exceptions and special permits, has not, since that case, ever been applied by this court to a case not involving a special permit or exception.

1979On the other hand, the rule in Stiles v. Town Council, 159 Conn. 212 , 268 A.2d 395 (1970), was followed and applied twice in the year following the decision in Lurie , in one instance, without even the citation of Lurie .

1979On the other hand, the rule in Stiles v. Town Council, 159 Conn. 212 , 268 A.2d 395 (1970), was followed and applied twice in the year following the decision in Lurie , in one instance, without even the citation of Lurie .