Recent changes in the law affecting Halloran Sage’s municipal clients include two recent Connecticut Supreme Court decisions and two new statutory amendments.

Click on the links below for full access to complete summaries.

The case of Kuchta v. Arisian, 329 Conn. 530 (August 21, 2018) concerns the Connecticut Supreme Court decision on municipal regulation of advertising signs under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-2. In this case, the issue was whether the statute “permits a municipality to regulate signs erected on residential property that disparage a commercial vendor.” The Court ruled that a municipality can only regulate advertising signs based on the court-adopted definition of “advertising” from dictionaries in the 1930s.

Public Act 18-28 added language to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-2 that expands the statutory authority to regulate “brightness and illumination” of signs to the already authorized regulation of “height, size, and location.” Although the expansion of express statutory authority might seem welcome, it may be a mixed blessing because commissions cannot regulate the “brightness and illumination” of non-advertising signs.

The case of Cady v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Burlington, 330 Conn. 502 (December 11, 2018) involves the definition of “subdivision,” and held that the substantial reconfiguration of three lots to make them buildable was not a subdivision.

Public Act 18-132 changed the rules for legal nonconforming uses. Zoning commissions are now explicitly prohibited from requiring a special permit or special exception for the continuance of any nonconforming use, building or structure existing at the time of the adoption of such regulations.