Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2008

Home

.. .--.-.-.. . - """""__._._. _.. - _.--0 October 10, 2008\ Volume 21 No. 1~ t] and if it found them to be "clear and unambiguous" then it could not impose another meaning on them. ' , The court found that urider that "clear and unambiguous" standard, , Section 501 of the zoning ordinance, not the amend~d Section 301, cOn,- trolled whether an allowed use was classified as a "permitted use," a "conditional use," or a "special exception." Section 301, said the court, "simply d[id] not speak to the proper use classification of allowed uses within the various districts." Section 301 merely set forth a nonexclusive . listing of what uses (a collection of 'uses without regard to clas~ification) could be allowed in the respective zoning districts. The court concluded that because the sections served different functions,. the addition of the term "landfill", in the listing of the allowed uses in Section 301 created no conflict ,within the ordinance. ' See also: Capco of Summerville, Inc. v. I.H. Gayle Const. Co., Inc., 368 S.c. 137, 628 S.E.2d 38 (2006). ' ((J, Case Note: Important to its decision, 'the court emphasized that the reference to an allowed use as a "use permitted" was not the same thing as the term of art "permitted uses." Therefore, the court found that the amended Section 301's list of uses permitted had no bearing on the proper' use classification of an allowed use under Section 501. Interpretation of Regulations/Severability of Illegal Conditions-Property owners appeal issuance of a zoning permit to neighbor I I ,They argue proposed use is not permitted and illegal permit conditions are not severable Citation: Heim v. Zoning Bd.of Appeals of Town of New Canaan, 288 Conn. 628,953 A.2d 877 (2008) CONNECTICUT (09/02/08)-Gen Three, LLC (GTL) owned prop- , erty in the town. The property was located within a business zone (the business A zone) that bordered a residential neighborhood. GfL applied to the town for a zoning permit to operate a veterinary clinic on the property. The town's planning and zoning commission (the Commission) ulti- mately approved GITs application. In doing, so, the Commission deter- mined that the veterinary clinic was "an acceptable use in the [b]usiness [z]one A if certain conditions [we]re met.", The Commission imposed i\,~) ~ @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 5 , ~'" . ~ 'j :! i 'I 'I :\ ! 73