FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD THE PAMELA CORPORATION ET AL. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD

Citations

• 339 Conn. 268

Syllabus

The plaintiff property owner, F Co., appealed to the trial court from the decisions of the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, adopting certain amendments to the city's zoning regulations and changes to the zoning map. In 2012, shortly after F Co. submitted a special permit application to the commission to construct a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window on its property, the commission approved a zone change that placed the property in a different zoning district and effectively prohibited F Co.'s proposed use. F Co. was then notified that its application was incomplete and that it needed to submit additional information if it wished to proceed. F Co. appealed to the trial court from the commission's adoption of the zone change, and the court sustained F Co.'s appeal. Subsequently, in 2014, F Co.'s lessee, M Co., began to prepare the materials required to complete the special permit application and attempted to schedule a meeting to The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 339 Conn. 268 NOVEMBER, 2021 269 Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission review the application with D, the city's zoning administrator. Two days before the meeting, however, certain amendments to the zoning regulations that had been adopted by the commission in 2014, which prohibited fast-food restaurants with drive-through window service adja- cent to residential zones, went into effect. At the meeting, representa- tives of M Co. delivered the materials needs to complete F Co.'s initial application for a special permit, but D informed them that the proposed use of the property was then prohibited by virtue of the 2014 amend- ments. D then sent a letter to M Co. stating that F Co.'s application was void on the ground that it was incomplete. On the same day, the commission readopted the 2012 zone change to F Co.'s property. F Co. filed separate appeals from the commission's a