He hopes the newly formed Charter Review Commission will take up the matter. I thought that may be the standard for zoning boards around the state, but I was wrong about that. “If we’re not the only community in the state, it’s certainly not the norm in requiring a super majority,” he said. We’ll have that opportunity to go through those channels and respect the outcome,” he said.įlorsheim said he was “ignorant of” that section of city charter. “It’s important for us to continue to pursue this to eventually get the needs met of clients living in Middletown and Middlesex County who we provide treatment for.”įlorsheim said this week the suit was not unexpected following the meeting’s outcome. Zuckerman declined to speak specifically about the ongoing litigation. The suit said opioid abuse is a public health crisis that has resulted in “hundreds of untimely deaths.” The Root Center provides mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment at its nine clinics in Connecticut, Hollister said in the suit, adding that, for the past 30 years, methadone maintenance treatment facilities and methadone clinics have been prohibited in Middletown. This is kind of a black eye for Middletown.”
“I think we’ll look back on this with embarrassment. The final decision was somewhat unsettling for the mayor, he said.
#Finetunes middletown license
Company fined $1 million by CT officials, license revoked.
#Finetunes middletown free
“Zoning boards are generally not allowed to reverse themselves unless there has been a change of conditions that has occurred since the prior decision of the board, or when other considerations materially affecting the merits of the subject matter have intervened and no vested rights have arisen,” Forte wrote. “It is the opinion of this office and the charter and CGS 8-3(b) do not conflict, and even if they did, it would be the charter that controls,” Forte said in an Oct. Middletown Assistant General Counsel Christopher Forte has advised that a second vote is unwarranted. Attorneys also are asking the court to declare the 4-3 vote to be an approval, to direct the commission to approve the special exception application, as well as award costs, and other “just and proper” relief. In its suit, the Root Center asked the zoning commission to vote again on the application at its Oct. In it, the lawyer said, the 4-3 vote was, in fact, an approval, “because the charter and bylaw provisions mandating five affirmative votes are contrary to state law (specifically) General Statutes 8-3(b).”
In a 19-page complaint, attorney Timothy Hollister of Shipman & Goodwin in Hartford outlined his argument, which is based his assertion that it is an “erroneous assumption” that five affirmative votes are required for any commission action.
0 kommentar(er)
