Villages, LLC v. Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
Connecticut Appellate Court
89 A.3d 405 (2014)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Villages, LLC (plaintiff) filed applications for a special-use permit and an open-space subdivision with the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission (the commission) (defendant). Patrick Tallarita, a former mayor of Enfield, was the husband of an owner of Villages. Tallarita had been friends with Lori Longhi, a commission member, until the two had a falling out after Tallarita did not intervene in an application that Longhi had made to the commission sometime in the past. Villages did not disclose the fractured relationship between Tallarita and Longhi during the hearing. The commission denied both applications filed by Villages. Unbeknownst to Villages, while its applications had been pending, Longhi had made comments to Anthony DiPace that she was upset with the denial of her application and that she wanted to Tallarita to suffer the same fate. Additionally, Villages later learned that Longhi had met with Bryon Meade, a Hazardville Water Company representative, to discuss the proposed subdivision’s effects on water pressure with respect to the fire department. Notably, Longhi’s arguments regarding water pressure and fire were intense at the hearing and issues related to water pressure served as the reason that the applications were denied. Further, the transcript of the hearing indicated that Longhi dominated the discussion of the applications. Villages became aware of Longhi’s comments to DiPace and the meeting with Meade after the commission had denied the applications. Villages appealed the denials to the trial court, which found in favor of Villages. The commission appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lavine, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.