Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2011 Volume 5 'No. 7 <br />location in which a business may operate. In other words, the court <br />found that § 11362.775 did not prohibit the county from applying <br />its nuisance laws to MMDs that did not comply with the county's <br />valid ordinances. <br />Case Note: On December 7, 2010, the county banned MMDs in <br />all zones in the county. The validity of that ban was not before the <br />court in the case summarized here. <br />Standing —Commission Adopts Amendment <br />Creating an Overlay Zone in an Industrial Zone <br />Property owner in industrial zone maintains he is statutorily <br />aggrieved and has standing to challenge amendment <br />Citation: Douglas v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Water- <br />town, 127 Conn. App. 87, 2011 WL 722526 (2011) <br />CONNECTICUT (03/08/11)—This case addressed the issue of wheth- <br />er a property owner had standing to challenge an amendment to a zon- <br />ing ordinance, which created an overlay district. <br />The Background/Facts: The town planning and zoning commission <br />(the "PZC") adopted a text amendment to the town zoning regulations <br />(the "Amendment"). The Amendment created a B-PCD262 zone, which <br />permitted retail and office development in an existing industrial zone. Es- <br />sentially, the Amendment created an "overlay zone," which under specif- <br />ic circumstances and subject to specific preconditions affected 150 acres <br />of land bound by five different roads in town. <br />Jonathan Andrew ("Andrew") owned land that was located within <br />the newly created zoning district. He brought a court action, challenging <br />the town's adoption of the Amendment. Among other things, he argued <br />that the "approval of the [A]mendment was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, <br />in abuse of the [PZC]'s discretion and in violation of its own regulations <br />and applicable statutes." <br />Andrew had maintained that he had standing to bring the challenge <br />because he was statutorily aggrieved under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8(a)(1). <br />Section 8-8(a)(1), which governs planning and zoning commission ap- <br />peals, allows an appeal to be brought by an "`aggrieved person' ... [and] <br />includes any person owning land which abuts or is within a radius of <br />one hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of <br />the board." <br />The PZC argued that Andrew was not aggrieved and thus lacked <br />standing. The PZC said that the zone created by the Amendment was a <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />