Opinion
(AC 22362) (AC 22363)
Argued April 29
Officially released June 17, 2003
Appeal, in the first case, from the decision by the defendant approving certain zone changes and appeal, in the second case, from the decision by the defendant to amend its zoning regulations, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London and tried to the court, McLachlan, J.; judgments sustaining the appeals, from which the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Reversed; judgments directed.
Fatima T. Lobo, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Edward B. O'Connell, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion
The resolution of these appeals, which concern the identical legal issue, involving the construction of General Statutes 8-3 (d), is controlled by our Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Planning Zoning Commission, 260 Conn. 399, 796 A.2d 1187 (2002). In Wilson v. Planning Zoning Commission, 53 Conn. App. 182, 729 A.2d 791 (1999), this court held that the East Granby planning and zoning commission could establish a new effective date for a certain zone change and publish notice before the new effective date. We therefore reversed the trial court's determination that the commission's failure of notice rendered its decision null and void. In the present cases, the trial court applied that reasoning with respect to certain actions by the East Lyme zoning commission.
In Wilson v. Planning Zoning Commission, supra, 260 Conn. 399, the Supreme Court reversed our decision and determined that the failure to comply with statutory; General Statutes § 8-3 (d); publication requirements rendered the commission's decision null and void, and that the commission could not retroactively validate an invalid zone change by fixing a new effective date and publishing notice. Id., 405. Although the trial court correctly applied the holding of this court in Wilson v. Planning Zoning Commission, supra, 53 Conn. App. 182, the Supreme Court's subsequent reversal of our judgment requires that we reverse the trial court's judgments.
The trial court rendered its judgments on July 26, 2001.