Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin '. ing regulations and district. The court found that, contrary to VIP's argument, neither of those sections provided that a PZC's authoriza- tion to regulate the location and use of buildings was exclusive. The court next acknowledged that there was overlap in the General Statutes between the authority of a zoning commission and the exercise of the municipal police power though the adoption of ordinances by a town's legislative body. The court noted that many subjects over which municipalities were given the power to regulate by CGS ~ 7-148 were traditionally the subject of zoning and planning regulations, including the authority to regulate "the mode of using buildings." The court said that where two statute's language and purpose overlap, they ,were to be read in concert and the overlap must be presumed to have been in- tended by the legislature. ' The court found that the legislature's intention to give municipali- ties overlapping authority to regulate the "mode of using any build~ ings" was made clear by the language of ~ 7-148. While other pow- ers granted to municipalities by ~ 7-148 were exercisable only when there was no PZC, the power'to regulate the "mode of using any building" was not S6 limited. The court concluded that the legisla- ture therefore did not intend to preclude the exercise of a municipal- ity's police power to regulate the mode of using any building when there was a local PZc. The court further determined that locational requirements for land use were included under the regulation of the "mode of using any buildings." VIP had also argued that the town charter precluded the town council from utilizing their police power to enact ordinances, as au- thorized by ~ 7-148. The town charter provided that the legislative power of the town must be. vested with the town council except as provided in the charter. It further provided that the PZC must be gov- erned by the provisions of the CGS. The court disagreed with VIP, and found that the charter did not preclude the town council from enact- ing the locational restrictions under the Ordinance because: (1) the 10- cational restrictions were not an action by the town council to amend or repeal the PZC's regulations; (2) the town's action would not have any impact on the making, amending or repealing of any PZC regula- tions; and (3) the Ordinance was not part of the town's general plan, but was, by its nature and purpose, a regulation of adult uses pursu- ant to its legitimate police power. See also: VIP of Berlin, LLC v. Town of Berlin, 50 Conn. Supp. 542, 2007 WL 5210635 (Super. Ct. 2007), judgment aftd, 287 Conn. 142,946 A.2d 1246 (2008). 4 @ 2008 Thomson ReutersIWest 40