· 2/23/2021

MSW Associates, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Dept.

Citations

  • 202 Conn. App. 707

Syllabus

The defendant Planning and Zoning Department of the City of Danbury appealed from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal filed by the plaintiff property owner. The plaintiff, which had been issued a permit to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station and volume reduction plant on its property by the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, filed a site plan with the defendant, which the defendant denied. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court alleging that the defendant acted arbitrarily, capriciously, unlawfully, and in abuse of its discretion when it determined the site plan was not a use permitted by the city's zoning regulations, and that its site plan denial was in violation of the statute (§ 22-208b (b)) providing that no zoning regulation shall have the effect of prohibiting the construction and opera- tion of a volume reduction plant and transfer station. The court sustained the plaintiff's appeal and remanded the case with direction to grant the site plan, and the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court did not err by holding that the regulations' limitation of solid waste facilities only to those in a certain zone and in existence as of a certain date violated § 22a-208b (b); this court's examination of the regulations persuaded it that the regulations do not permit a new transfer station or other type of solid waste facility anywhere in the city, in effect, prohibiting the construction, alteration, or operation of solid waste facilities and, as such, they did not conform to the strictures of § 22a-208b (b). 2. The defendant could not prevail on its claim that the plaintiff lacked standing to claim a violation of § 22a-208b (b) on the basis of allegations that the regulations failed to allow solid waste facilities other than the specific subtype of facility it sought to construct on its property: the plaintiff did not seek to have the regulations invalidated, it merely sought to have the court ord

Judges: Lavine; Suarez; Devlin

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.