No municipal agency or legislative body shall (1) locate, accept, abandon, widen, narrow or extend any street, bridge, parkway or other public way, (2) locate, relocate, substantially improve, acquire land for, abandon, sell or lease any airport, park, playground, school or other municipally owned property or public building, (3) locate or extend any public housing, development, redevelopment or urban renewal project, or (4) locate or extend public utilities and terminals for water, sewerage, light, power, transit and other purposes, until the proposal to take such action has been referred to the commission for a report. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a municipality may take final action approving an appropriation for any proposal prior to the approval of the proposal by the commission pursuant to this section. The failure of the commission to report within thirty-five days after the date of official submission of the proposal to it for a report shall be taken as approval of the proposal. In the case of the disapproval of the proposal by the commission the reasons therefor shall be recorded and transmitted to the legislative body of the municipality. A proposal disapproved by the commission shall be adopted by the municipality or, in the case of disapproval of a proposal by the commission subsequent to final action by a municipality approving an appropriation for the proposal and the method of financing of such appropriation, such final action shall be effective, only after the subsequent approval of the proposal by (A) a two-thirds vote of the town council where one exists, or a majority vote of those present and voting in an annual or special town meeting, or (B) a two-thirds vote of the representative town meeting or city council or the warden and burgesses, as the case may be. The provisions of this section shall not apply to maintenance or repair of existing property, buildings or public ways, including, but not limited to, resurfacing of roads.
(1949 Rev., S. 857; 1959, P.A. 679, S. 5; 1963, P.A. 617; 1971, P.A. 862, S. 7; P.A. 85-365, S. 1, 2; P.A. 09-92, S. 1.)
History: 1959 act substituted legislative body for enumerated persons and entities and added abandonment of streets etc. to categories of proposals; 1963 act rephrased first sentence; 1971 act changed from 30 days to 35 days the period within which commission must report on proposal or failure to do so will be considered approval; P.A. 85-365 made a variety of technical changes and inserted provisions concerning approval of appropriations prior to commission action and specifying that section does not apply to maintenance or repair of existing property, public ways or buildings; P.A. 09-92 added provision re exemption for resurfacing of roads, effective July 1, 2009.
Cited. 148 C. 517; 149 C. 719; 153 C. 194. Rezoning of an area approved by zoning commission but opposed by planning commission, reversed by courts where “transportation, water and sewerage” was lacking as planning commission could refuse approval also of new facilities for area. 154 C. 202, 210. Only two acts of planning board are binding without further action by other municipal agencies; designation of and assessments for municipal improvements and action on subdivision plan. 159 C. 1. Cited. Id., 423; 160 C. 295. Whether town has abandoned a particular street, thus necessitating referral to the town planning and zoning commission, is a question of fact, to be determined from the circumstances. 174 C. 282. Legislature intended that coastal site plan review be part of planning or zoning application or referral under section as listed in Sec. 22a-105(b) and not a separate review; report issued by planning and zoning commission pursuant to such referral is purely advisory and is not appealable. 266 C. 338.
Cited. 2 CA 213; 21 CA 77; 26 CA 540.
Notes of Decisions
Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n of New London, 832 A.2d 611 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 50× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that: (1) the commission’s decision on a coastal site plan review performed in conjunction with a referral under General Statutes § 8-24 1 is an appealable final *341 decision; and (2) the plaintiff, which intervened in the administrative…”
Trivalent Realty Co. v. Town of Westport, 477 A.2d 140 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984).
· cites it 28× “hen provided, in effect, that *215 a municipality shall not make a municipal improvement without first referring the proposal for the improvement to its planning commission for a report; that failure of the commission to report within thirty days constitutes approval; and that…”
Leoni v. Water Pollution Control Auth., 571 A.2d 153 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 12× “The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that, as a matter of law, the WPCA violated its own enabling ordinance and General Statutes § 8-24 when it condemned a portion of the plaintiffs’ land for an easement.”
Ne. Enter. v. Water Pollution Control Auth., 601 A.2d 563 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 15× “2 The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that General Statutes § 8-24 was not applicable to an appeal from an assessment of benefits under General Statutes §§ 7-249 and 7-250, (2) determined that the defendant had complied with General Statutes §…”
Pizzuto v. Town of Newington, 386 A.2d 238 (Conn. 1978).
· cites it 4× “1 General Statutes § 8-24, entitled “Municipal Improvement,” provides, in pertinent part: “No municipal agency or legislative body shall locate, accept, abandon, widen, narrow or extend any street, bridge, parkway or other public way .”
Lurie v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 278 A.2d 799 (Conn. 1971).
· cites it 4× “In such circumstances it is entirely reasonable and logical that the planning and zoning commission which is entrusted with large powers in connection with city planning and zoning and municipal improvements (including the widening of streets; General Statutes § 8-24) should be…”
St. John's Roman Catholic Church Corp. v. Town of Darien, 184 A.2d 42 (Conn. 1962).
· cites it 4× “Both the existing and the proposed public schools have been approved by the planning and zoning commission under what is now General Statutes § 8-24, 2 subject to prescribed conditions relating to buffer *720 strips, parking and playground facilities and exterior lighting.”
Stohlts v. Gilkinson, 867 A.2d 860 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes §§ 8-24 and 13a-49. In the instant case, both the plaintiffs and .”
Sheridan v. Plan. Bd., 266 A.2d 396 (Conn. 1969).
· cites it 2× “, General Statutes §§8-24, 8-25. In summary, only two acts of a planning board are binding without further action by a zoning commission or other municipal agency: action on a subdivision plan, and designation of and assessments for municipal improvements.”
DeBeradinis v. Zoning Comm'n, 635 A.2d 1220 (Conn. 1994).
““(f) A municipal coastal boundary may be adopted by the municipal planning commission of each coastal municipality in accordance with the notice, hearing and other procedural requirements of section 8-24. Such boundary may be delineated by roads, property lines or other…”
Town of Lebanon v. Woods, 215 A.2d 112 (Conn. 1965).
· cites it 2× “Insofar as the defendant's plan involved drainage, its approval by the selectmen was not authorized.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.