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. ****************************************************** HOLLY LAUVER ET AL. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF CANTERBURY ET AL. (AC 18691)
Lavery, C. J., and Zarella and Pellegrino, Js. Argued June 13--officially released October 24, 2000 Counsel

Mark K. Branse, for the appellant (defendant Joseph Savino). Richard S. Cody, for the appellee (named defendant). Brian R. Smith, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Opinion

LAVERY, C. J. The defendant Joseph Savino appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal of the plaintiffs, Holly Lauver and Jean-Claude Doucet,1 from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of Canterbury (commission) granting Savino a special exception permit (permit). On appeal, Savino claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that notice of the commission's May 9, 1996 public hearing was invalid due to a

clerical error in his April 3, 1996 application (original application) for the permit, (2) concluded that a claim of automatic approval cannot be raised in an administrative appeal and (3) voided the permit rather than remanding Savino's May 7, 1996 application (amended application) for a new hearing. We agree with Savino's third claim and reverse the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to this appeal. On April 13, 1996, Savino applied for a permit, pursuant to General Statutes

Download Lauver v. Planning & Zoning Commission.pdf

Connecticut Law