Thomaston S.B. v. Zoning Comm., Waterbury

2 Citing cases

  1. Murphy v. Zoning Board of City of Stamford

    FSTCV145014294S (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2016)

    The parties further agree that the zoning board consists of five members, that a quorum for the conduct of business is three members and that four members were present at the July 28, 2014 meeting which acted on the amendment. The plaintiff relies heavily on the trial court decision of Thomaston Sav. Bank v. Zoning Commission, 2000 WL 264293 (2000), in which the court invalidated the action of the Waterbury Zoning Commission which approved a zone change by a vote of two in favor and one abstention. The court reasoned that although three members who were in attendance constituted a quorum, Section 8-3(b) mandated that a majority vote of the commission be cast for a zone change thus requiring three affirmative votes.

  2. Cranberry Hill v. Shelton Planning Zon.

    2005 Ct. Sup. 9443 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    " There is no such 65-day requirement for the ruling on applications for zone changes. As the court observed in Thomaston Savings Bank v. Waterbury, 2000 Ct.Sup. 2633, CV99 0151649 (Leheny, J.), this is so because "where the board is engaging in an administrative function and need only determine whether the applicant has met the specific standards set forth in the regulations, the imposition of automatic approval upon the board's failure to act within the statutorily determined time is reasonable and rational. Where the board is acting in its legislative capacity and lawfully exercising its broad discretion, however, an automatic approval of an application for newly proposed legislation, merely because of the passage of time, would constitute an unwarranted diminution of the board's ability to function as a legislative body.