Skip to main content
· 6/18/2024

9 Pettipaug, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission

Citations

  • 349 Conn. 268

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, which owned real property in the borough of Fenwick, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission approving certain amendments to Fenwick's zoning regulations. Fenwick is located entirely within the town of Old Saybrook and is an exclusively residential, largely seasonal community of sixty-seven summer residences and fourteen year-round households. The commission had adopted the amendments in July, 2019, and notice of the commission's decision was published in The Middletown Press (Press) a few days later. The Press is an online and print publication, and the print version is available for purchase at nine retailers, several of which are in the part of Old Saybrook that serves as the primary commercial area for Fenwick residents. None of Fenwick's year-round households subscribe to any version of the Press, but viewers may access the legal notices section of the Press' website for free and without a subscription. The plaintiffs filed their appeal with the trial court in October, 2019. They claimed, inter alia, that the commission had unlaw- fully adopted the amendments by failing to publish notice of its decision ''in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in the municipality'' of Fenwick, in violation of the statute (§ 8-3 (d)) governing the adoption of and amendment to zoning regulations. The commission moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal, claiming that it was untimely because it had not been filed within fifteen days of the publication of the notice, as required by the statute (§ 8-8 (b)) governing appeals from decisions of zoning commissions. The trial court, however, denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the appeal was timely filed under the savings provision of § 8-8 (r) because the commission had not published notice of its decision in a newspaper having a ''substantial circulation'' in Fenwick, as required by § 8-3 (d). The plaintiffs then moved for summary 349 Conn. 268 JUNE,

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.