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. ******************************************************

WALGREEN EASTERN COMPANY, INC. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD WALGREEN EASTERN COMPANY, INC. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD (AC 31497)
DiPentima, C. J., and Lavine and Peters, Js. Argued April 26--officially released August 2, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Tobin, J.) John F. Fallon, for the appellant (plaintiff). Richard H. Saxl, for the appellees (defendants in each case). Joel Z. Green, for the appellees (defendant Jeffrey Rowe et al. both cases).

Opinion

PETERS, J. This zoning appeal concerns the unsuccessful effort of a real estate lessee to open a pharmacy on property that previously had been used as a grocery store. Although the lessee planned to make only interior changes to the property, local zoning authorities refused to authorize the lessee's proposed change of use. The lessee challenges the validity of the procedural decision of the town zoning board of appeals that it was required to apply for a certificate of zoning compliance and the validity of the substantive decision of the town zoning commission that it was not entitled to such a certificate. We affirm the judgments of the trial court dismissing the lessee's appeals. On July 23, 2007, the plaintiff, Walgreen Eastern Company, Inc., filed a complaint alleging that the defendant town plan and zoning commission of the town of Fairfield (zoning commission) improperly had denied the plaintiff's application for a certificate of zoning compliance.1 In accordance with a motion filed by the plaintiff, this complaint was consolidated with the plaintiff's appeal from a prior adverse decision of the defendant zoning board of appeals of the town of Fairfield (zoning board) that the plaintiff was required to apply for a certificate of zoning compliance from the zoning commission. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court, Tobin, J., dismissed both appeals and denied the plaintiff's motion to reargue. The plaintiff has appealed. The opinion of the court describes the underlying undisputed facts. The plaintiff is the lessee of premises located partially in a Fairfield Neighborhood Designed Business District and partially in a Fairfield Residence District A. The site, which includes a building and an adjacent parking lot, formerly was used as a supermarket. The plaintiff's proposed use of the site does not involve any additions or exterior alterations to the building or the site. Its status as lessee established its aggrievement to pursue both appeals. I The plaintiff's appeal from the zoning board challenges the validity of the board's decision that, because the plaintiff's proposed use of the leasehold represented a change in the use of the property, it was required to apply to the zoning commission for a certificate of zoning compliance. The court dismissed this appeal because of the plaintiff's failure to comply with General Statutes

Download Walgreen Eastern Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals.pdf

Connecticut Law