Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

Letitia Kilby filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, claiming unlawful housing discrimination by Defendants, the town housing authority and a property management company. The Commission found reasonable cause to believe that unlawful discrimination occurred. The trial court then granted Defendants' request to file a civil action in the trial court. Kilby moved to intervene, claiming both intervention as of right and permissive intervention. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed, concluding that although the statute at issue, Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-83(d)(2), did not expressly grant Kilby a right of intervention, it impliedly granted Kilby a right of intervention. The Supreme Court granted Defendants' petition for certification to appeal, but while the case was pending, the legislature enacted Conn. Pub. Acts 11-237, which amended the text of section 46a-83 to allow a complainant to intervene as of right in a housing discrimination action brought by the commission on behalf of the complainant. The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the significance of Defendants' appeal was substantially undermined by Conn. Pub. Acts 11-237, and, thus, certification was improvidently granted.

Plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court upholding the zoning board of appeals of the city of Stamford's ("board") decision that a dock located on the waters of Stamford Harbor was a neighborhood dock rather than a marina, and therefore, improvements to the dock were not subject to the city's zoning regulations. At issue was whether the trial court properly upheld the board's decision that the Southfield Point Associations' construction of a 196 foot dock and the use of Cook Road Extension for access to and connection with the dock were entirely immune from local zoning regulation merely because they related to water dependent use. The court held that the trial court properly upheld the board's decision and agreed with defendants when the dock and its intersection with Cook Road Extension were located waterward of the mean high water line, where the city normally had no jurisdiction, and when the zoning regulations did not apply to activities that took place on Cook Road Extension.