Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2008

Home

__:.:::.i:.C:o':;':::':i..:-'..'.::;~~~.:,;:...:-~~:.~_'::'-~':'--=:'::':--=':',_..:_...c",",--,,"o.:_~,,-- ~- -. ~- ---~-- Zoning Bulletin two conditions' on the permit: (1) a prohibition on overnight bdarding of animals; and (2) a reservation of rights to the Commission to require ad- ditional modifications to the building to limit noise. QuentinHeim and Sandy Deasi (collectively, Heinl) owned property adjacent to Gll's property. Heim appealed the Commission's decision on GTL's zoning permit application to the town's zoning board of ap- peals (ZBA). Heim argued that the permit was invalid because: (1) the veterinary clinic was not a permitted use in the business A zone; and (2) . the illegal conditions imposed on the permit were integral to the permit, and thus, were not severable from the permit. The ZBAd~nied Heim's appeal. Heimappealed to the superior court. The superior, coUrt affirmed the ZBA's upholding of the Commission's decision granting the permit. In doing so, the superior court concluded that: (1) a veterinary clinic was a "health-orienteq." office, which was a permitted. use in .the business A zone; and (2) although the conditions imposed on the permit were invalid, they also were not integral to the permit and therefore could be severed from it. "Heim appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The Supreme CoUrt of Connecticut agreed with the superior court that. the :veterinary clinic was a permitted use in . the business A zone be- cause it was a "health-oriented office" within the meaning of, .and per- mitted by, the zoning regulation. The coUrt, however, disagreed with the superior coUrt as to the severability of the permit's illegal conditions. The court found that the illegal conditions imposed on the Gll's zoning per- mit were integral to the permit, and were therefore not s~verable from the remainder of the permit. Accordingly, it concluded that Gll's permit could not be upheld. In readling its conclusion, the court first analyzed the town's zoning regulations for the business A zone. The regulations permitted "medical, dental or similar health-oriented" offices in business A zone. Heim had argued that phrase did not permit a veterinarian clinic because it "clearly and specifically refer[red] to the medical care of human beings, not ani- mals." GTL argued that a veterinary clinic did fall WIth the meaning of . that phrase because the terms were broad and did not discrlminate be- tween human beings and animals. 6 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 74 () (-) I i \' I J i , j I j I I I I ! I I I I J I I I I I I I ) "--'/