Clark v. Planning Zoning Commission

3 Citing cases

  1. Armstrong v. Zoning Board of Appeals

    158 Conn. 158 (Conn. 1969)   Cited 30 times
    In Armstrong v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 158 Conn. 158, the zoning commission of the town of Washington had issued a certificate of conformity with the zoning regulations allowing a foundation to erect a school for the education of socially and emotionally maladjusted children under certain restrictions.

    That is the proposed use as stated in the application, and, as therein more specifically described, the use conforms with an accepted meaning of the word "school" under "the broad modern concept of education and within the meaning of the term as it was used in the ordinance." Langbein v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 135 Conn. 575, 584, 67 A.2d 5; see also Clark v. Planning Zoning Commission, 152 Conn. 559, 561, 210 A.2d 320; State v. Gager, 28 Conn. 232, 235; American Asylum v. Phoenix Bank, 4 Conn. 172, 177; Matter of Wiltwyck School for Boys, Inc. v. Hill, 11 N.Y.2d 182, 182 N.E.2d 268. The board was not required to anticipate that Devereux would later violate the zoning regulations by a use not authorized by the regulations, and, should such a violation occur, the ready remedy is by proper legal action at that time. Miklus v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 154 Conn. 399, 402, 225 A.2d 637.

  2. Y Downtown, Inc. v. Westport, PZC

    2011 Ct. Sup. 2629 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)

    The plaintiffs also challenge the nature of the use as "private." In Clark v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 152 Conn. 559, 561 (1965) the plaintiffs appealed from the granting of a special exception which determined the Westport Famous Artist School to be "private" within the meaning of a regulation permitting a " private school" by special exception in the AAA zone. (Emphasis added.)

  3. 300 PRW Assoc v. Plan. Zon. Comm.

    1992 Ct. Sup. 8876 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992)

    The court concludes that the word "cemetery" in 11-2.2.5 should be interpreted in accordance with the underlying public policy the regulation is designed to promote. See Carbone v. Vigliotti, 222 Conn. 216 231, ___ A.2d ___ (1992) (construction of regulation provision should be consistent with "the text of that provision . . . [and] the policy it is intended to effectuate"); Clark v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 152 Conn. 559, 561, 210 A.2d 320 (1965) ("what [a] word means in any given situation depends upon the context and the purpose of the . . . ordinance in which it occurs"). Moreover, in determining whether the Commission's interpretation of 11-2.2.5 is inconsistent with General Statutes 19a-295, et seq., the court must "revie[w] the policy and purposes behind the statute and measur[e] the degree to which the ordinance frustrates the achievement of the state's objectives."