Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 22 <br />See also: Hunt v. City of Los Angeles, 638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011). <br />Case Note: <br />C & F has also presented an alternative, "novel" argument: "truthful advertise- <br />ments for expressive works are inherently noncommercial speech, because they are <br />accorded the same First Amendment status as the underlying advertised work. " The <br />court rejected this argument. It acknowledged that in the limited context of specific <br />tort actions, that rule may apply. However, the court declined to extend that limited <br />exception. <br />Proceeding —Despite vote of three <br />to zero with one abstention, <br />variance application is denied under <br />state statute requiring four <br />concurring votes for variance <br />approval <br />Applicant contends approval should be given <br />since abstention created a situation where it <br />was impossible to have a sufficient vote <br />Citation: Green Falls Associates, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town <br />of Montville, 138 Conn. App. 481, 2012 WL 4797820 (2012) <br />CONNECTICUT (10/16/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />the vote of a zoning board of appeals on a variance application, with a vote <br />of three to zero with one abstention, is insufficient to have a vote under Con- <br />necticut statutory law, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-7, which requires the concur- <br />ring vote of four members of a zoning board of appeals to vary a zoning <br />ordinance. <br />The Background/Facts: In December 2006, Green Falls Associates, <br />LLC ("Green Falls") entered into an agreement to purchase certain property <br />in the town of Montville, Connecticut. The property was owned by Arthur <br />W. DeGezelle. In June 2007, Green Falls applied to the zoning board of ap- <br />peals of the town of Montville (the "ZBA") for a variance from certain yard <br />setback requirements. <br />Two hearings were held on Green Falls' variance request. At both hear- <br />ings, the chaiiinan of the ZBA recused himself. At the second hearing, an- <br />other member of the ZBA was absent. The four other members heard the <br />presentations and deliberated. Of those four members, three voted in favor <br />©2012 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />