Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Attorney Reiser dated 5-21-2026 and rec’d 6-3-2026Memo From: Attorney Dorian L. Reiser Date: May 21, 2026 Re: Application for Location Approval – 1080 Route 32, Montville, CT I have been asked to provide guidance on behalf of my client, Sammy P Inc., in connec�on with the processing of its applica�on for a Motor Vehicle Recycler’s License Loca�on Approval at property owned by Drive-In, LLC at 1080 Route 32, Montville, CT (the “Property”). Connec�cut General Statute § 14-67i provides that in order to establish, operate or maintain a motor vehicle recycler’s yard or business, a cer�ficate of approval of the loca�on must first be obtained from the board or authority designated by local charter, regula�on or ordinance. However, in towns having a zoning commission, combined planning and zoning commission and a board of appeals, the cer�ficate of approval shall come from the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). When ac�ng on loca�on approvals, the local ZBA is ac�ng pursuant to authority in Title 14 of the Connec�cut General Statutes, rather than pursuant to the zoning statutes in Title 8. As such, the ZBA is ac�ng as “a special agent of the state” and “does not act pursuant to either municipal zoning ordinance or the zoning statutes.” Vicino v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Westbrook, 28 Conn. App. 500, 504 (1992); Mason v. Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Bridgeport, 143 Conn. 634, 637 (1956). “Obtaining a cer�ficate of [loca�on] approval . . . is not a zoning mater.” Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Hamden, 154 Conn. 32, 35 (1966); and when ac�ng on a loca�on approval applica�on “the board is not dealing primarily with zoning but is performing a separate func�on delegated to it as an agency of the state” Dubiel v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of East Har�ord, 147 Conn. 517, 520 (1960). Ac�ons on a loca�on approval require only a simple majority of the board to pass, rather than a vote of 4 members of the board as typically required when the board is ac�ng pursuant to Title 8. Sun Oil Co., supra, 154 Conn. at 34. In addi�on, there is no requirement that a public hearing be held on a loca�on approval request, such requirement having been repealed in 2003. Also repealed in 2003 were any statutory standards or criteria for determining whether a loca�on is suitable for the proposed use. “In the absence of statutory criteria … it is le� to municipal zoning boards to determine, in their discre�on, the factors relevant to their decision on whether to grant a loca�on approval.” One Elmcro� Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Stamford, 213 Conn. App. 200, 222-223 (2022) (on remand from the Supreme Court). Ul�mately, the ZBA must determine whether the site is suitable based upon the relevant circumstances in existence at the �me the approval is sought. The intent of the statute is to permit the local board, that has knowledge and familiarity with the loca�on, to analyze whether the opera�on is suitable for the loca�on. “[T]he fact that a proposed use is permited in a par�cular zone does not obligate a zoning board to grant a loca�on approval applica�on. Indeed, all applica�ons filed pursuant to [Title 14] necessarily involve uses that are permited to some degree, as ‘[a] cer�ficate of approval for a par�cular use cannot be issued if that use would violate zoning regula�ons.’” Id., at 232, emphasis added, ci�ng Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 164 Conn. 85, 89 (1972). The ZBA “is obligated to make a determina�on, irrespec�ve of the permited nature of the proposed use, on whether a cer�ficate of approval should issue.” Id. at 233. In analyzing this request, the ZBA should first consider whether the use is permited in the zone. The subject Property is located in the Commercial-2 (C-2) Zoning District. Permited uses broadly include “ac�vi�es involving the sale of goods or services carried out for profit” (Sec�on 11.2.1). Query, does a motor vehicle recycler’s yard fall within this category? “When defini�ons are not provided in the zoning regula�ons, courts ‘look to the common understanding expressed in the law and in dic�onaries.’ ” Kobyluck Brothers, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of , 167 Conn. App. 383, 391 (2016). Furthermore, “[b]ecause zoning regula�ons are ‘in deroga�on of common law property rights … the regula�ons cannot be construed beyond the fair import of its language to include or exclude by implication that which is not clearly within its express terms’ … ‘when a statute is in deroga�on of common law … it should receive a strict construction and is not to be extended, modified, repealed or enlarged in its scope’ … ‘doub�ul language will be construed against rather than in favor of a restric�on.’ ” Id. at 392, emphasis added and internal cita�ons omited. Motor vehicle recycler’s yard and business is defined by statute to include “any business and any place of storage or deposit … which has stored or deposited two or more unregistered motor vehicles which are no longer intended or in condi�on for legal use on the public highways, or used parts of motor vehicles … which has been a part, or intended to be a part, of any motor vehicle, the sum of which parts shall be equal in bulk to tow or more motor vehicles.” CGS 14-67g. The sale of goods or services for profit is implicit in the defini�on of a “business”. “Black’s Law Dic�onary provides a defini�on of ‘business’: ‘a commercial enterprise carried on for profit…” Tesla, Inc. v. Conn. DMW, 2018 Conn. Super. LEXIS 5747. “[C]ases have given the word ‘business’ … widely variant meanings … Common to those decisions, however, is a dis�nc�on between an ac�vity that is performed for the primary purpose of genera�ng profit, to which the work ‘business’ is atached, and ac�vity that is not animated by such a purpose.” Id. Based upon the foregoing, a motor vehicle recycler’s business falls squarely within the permited use of “ac�vi�es involving the sale of goods or services carried out for profit”. Furthermore, the only way for a town to restrict motor vehicle recycler’s businesses or yards within their town is pursuant to Connec�cut General Statute § 14-67s which provides, in part, as follows: “[T]he legisla�ve body of any town, city or borough, in addi�on to powers conferred by the statutes or special acts upon such towns, ci�es or boroughs or the respec�ve officials thereof, may enact ordinances creating restricted districts within which any motor vehicle recycler’s yard or motor vehicle recycler’s business shall not be permitted to be established; provided, in any town, city or borough having a zoning commission or town or city planning commission or board, such zoning commission, planning commission or board shall have the authority to create such restricted districts by the adoption of appropriate rules, orders or regulations, and provided any ordinances, bylaws or regula�ons adopted prior to October 1, 1957, under the provisions of sec�on 4654 of the general statutes, revision of 1949, otherwise valid except that they were not adopted pursuant to the procedure provided in this sec�on, shall remain valid un�l altered or repealed under the provisions of this sec�on. If the Town of Montville wishes to limit the loca�on of motor vehicle recycler’s businesses or yards, it would need to adopt an ordinance or a zoning regula�on crea�ng specifically restricted districts in which the yards would not be permited. The Town has not undertaken such affirma�ve ac�on. Merely omi�ng a specific reference to motor vehicle recycler’s yards does not cons�tute compliance with the steps required by statute. Connec�cut law requires strict adherence to statutory provisions when limi�ng property rights. Upon concluding that a motor vehicle recycler’s business is a permited use within the zone, the ZBA should then consider whether it is an appropriate use for the subject Property. In this regard, it should be noted that “the designa�on of a par�cular use of property as a permited use establishes a conclusive presump�on that such use does not adversely affect the district and precludes further inquiry into its effect on traffic, municipal services, property values, or the general harmony of the district.” Friedman v Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Rocky Hill, 222 Conn. 262,265-266 (1992). As noted above, the zoning regula�ons widely permit “ac�vi�es involving the sale of goods or services carried out for profit,” which includes motor vehicle recycling yards, within the C-2 Zone. A conclusive presump�on, therefore, arises that such a use would not nega�vely affect the surrounding area.