LLP v. Wolcott Planning and Zoning Commission (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO REARGUE

The plaintiff in these appeals has filed a motion to reargue the court's final decision.   The motion is granted and reconsidered, in part.   There are three instances within the text of the court's decision, on pages 14, 59–60 and 60, where the court inaccurately cited the Commission's decision to deny the plaintiff's 10,000 tank appeal, as follows:  “․ (6) the plaintiff wanted to install the tanks to build its wholesale business, a use that is not permitted in Schedule A ․” This language represented the court's interpretation of the specific language used by the Commission, which was as follows:  “․ (6) the expansion of bulk storage tanks was more for a use that is not permitted in Schedule A than it was to expand the operations of Musco Fuel as a retailer ․” This reason is now accurately reflected on pp. 25, 111 and 112 of the Reconsidered Memorandum of Decision.

The court otherwise stands by its original decision, notwithstanding other issues raised in the motion.

BY THE COURT

MARK H. TAYLOR, J.

Taylor, Mark H., J.