Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin' February Hi, 20091 Volume 31 No.3 argued that the town's zoning regulations did not permit the operation of a veterinarian clinic in the business zone A. A town zoning regulation (the "Business Zone Ordinance") permitted "medical, dental or similar health- oriented" offices in the business zone A. The Neighbors maintained that the phrase "medical, dental or similar health-oriented" clearly and specifi- cally referred to the medical care of human beings, not aniIDals. After the town's zoning board of appeals (the "ZBA") denied the Neighbors appeal, the Neighbors appealed the ZBNs decision to the su- perior court. The superior court affirmed the ZBA's decision upholding the PZC's decision granting the permit. In doing so, the court concluded that a vet- erinary clinic was a "similar health-oriented" facility permitted in the business zone A. The Neighbors again appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. ........\ ) The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a veterinary clinic was a "health-oriented office" within the meaning of the Business Zone Ordi- nance, and therefore GTVs proposed veterinary clinic was a permitted use. In reaching its conclusion, the court said that because the ZBA had no't applied a "time-tested interpretation" of the Busmess Zone Ordi- nance, it did not need to defer to the ZBNs construction (or interpreta- tion) of the regulation. In construing the Business Zone Ordinance, the court: (1) looked at its plain language and the "commonly approved us- age" of its words; and (2) interpreted it in "light of its purpose." Looking at the phrase "medical, dental or similar health-oriented," the court focused on the term "health-oriented." Finding "health-ori- ented" was undefined, it looked to dictionary definitions. Since various dictionaries offered a similar definition of "health" as being the "state or condition of an organism" and not limited to the health of a person or a human being, the court concluded the common-usage of the term "health-oriented" included the health of animals. The court next looked at the purpose of the Business Zone Ordinance. That purpose was to provide areas for "single-purpose shopping and ser- vices which require on-site parklng facilities.'~ Appropriate uses in the business zone A were expressly defined as including "certain professional and personal services which often represent a special-purpose trip . . . ." The court concluded that a veterinary clinic was consistent with those purposes because: (1) it provided professional services. in that it provided medical and dental services for animals; and (2) a visit to a veterinarian generally was "single-purpose" since animals were generally "not admit- ted to shops, banks, restaurants and other facilities, and, because an ap- pointment [wa]s required to obtain a veterinarian's services. . . ." See also: Jim's Auto Body v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 285 Conn. 794, 942 A.2d 305 (2008). @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 9 99