Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

QUENTIN HEIM ET AL. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF NEW CANAAN ET AL. (SC 18088)
Norcott, Katz, Vertefeuille, Zarella and Schaller, Js. Argued April 15--officially released September 2, 2008

Brenden P. Leydon, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Louis Ciccarello, for the appellee (named defendant). Michael P. Sweeney, with whom, on the brief, was Amy E. Souchuns, for the appellees (intervening defendants).

Opinion

VERTEFEUILLE, J. The present case arises from the decision of the named defendant, the zoning board of appeals (board) of the town of New Canaan (town), denying the appeal of the plaintiffs, Quentin Heim and Sandy Deasi, from the issuance of a zoning permit for the operation of a veterinary clinic to the defendant Gen Three, LLC, which had applied for the permit on behalf of the intervening defendants, veterinarians Andrew Rappaport and Daniel Hochman.1 The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their appeal from the decision of the board. The issues presented in this certified appeal2 are whether the trial court properly concluded that: (1) a veterinary clinic constitutes a ``medical, dental or similar health-oriented'' facility as permitted by chapter 60, article X,

Download Heim v. Zoning Board of Appeals.pdf

Connecticut Law