Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2008

Home

_.J::.:i.z~~,:..~'..i:~:~0::.~":~.::"~:~.:~':-. '.;. . 'c.-. _';,::.::.:.;.-_-::_..,p-~::...:_-~..,~.; . -:.~,,.;.;:;.~...:.:-~;.-""';.~......~-'"'.. -~~ --...--- -.., .- i j .J ., . \ 1 I , I I I I \ \ I I .\ .\ \ I i \ i i I i I I I j I \ \ . .1 i I I I I I I I j I I ,(r-) .....~.,/,. October 10, 20081 Valume 2\ No.. 19 ?) (' ., ..-/ Laaking at dictianary de~tians, the co.urt faund the. "key" term "health-oriented" included the health af animals. It also. cancluded that a veterinary clinic was cansistent with. the purpase af business A zane, which it nated was to permit single-purpase services, including certain prafessianal and persanal s~rvices which aften represented a special-pur- pose trip. The caurt faund: (1) vetermarianspravided prafessional servic- . es; (2) a visit to. a veterinarian generally was a "single purpase;" (3) veter-- inarian services were "special-purpose" trips because an appaintment was required far them; and (4) a veterinarian was. "similar to." and cansistent with the prafessianal and persanal services referred to. in the regulation. Thus, the court concluded that GTL's propased veterinary clinic was a "sirnilarhealth-ariented" affice permitted in the business A zane. The caurt next laaked at the canditions to. GTL's permit, which the . parties did nat dispute were illegal. Where a canditian, which was an "integral" part af the permit; was invalid, the permit "must fall," said the court. Whether the illegal conditians attached to. GTVs permit were integral to the permit depended an whether the Cammissian would have refused to grant the permit without the conditians~ The caurt found that,. "[i]n light of the substantialneighborhaad appositian to. the veterinary clinic, principally based an noise concerns," it could nat conclude that the Commission wauld have granted the permit without the conditions. Thus, the court .concluded that the conditions were integral to the per- mit.The coUrt found the wording of the Commission's approval rein- farced that conclusion: The Cammission had said that it foUnd the clinic to be an acceptable use only "if certain canditions [we]re met." Accord- ingly, the caurt cancluded that GTI;s permit cauld nat be upheld. See also.: West Hartford Interfaith Coalition, Inc. v. Town Council of Town of West Hartford, 228 Conn. 498, 636 A.2d 1342 (1994). See also.: Vaszi:luskas v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of South bury, 215 Conn. 58, 574 A.2d 212 (1990). (;) Case Note: The caurt had faund a pravisian af the tawn's zaning regulatians that referenced "animal haspitals." Specificaily,the pra- . visian _excluded animal haspitals fram residential zanes. The caurt; hawever, faund that pravisian did nat shed light an the meaning af "health-oriented" because: (1) GTL's property was lacatedin a busi- nesszone, not are~idential zane; and (2) nane af the parties can- tended that the propased veterinarian clinic resembled ar canstituted an animal haspital. @ 2008 Thomson ReutersNVest 7 75