Murphy v. Zoning Board of City of Stamford

A Connecticut state court rejected an argument that the City of Stamford Zoning Board did not include sufficient reasons for changes to the definition of building height in zoning regulations for areas within the city’s Coastal Boundary. The court noted that a City staff report contained “a clear rationale for the appropriateness, indeed necessity, for the regulation of the elevation of residential buildings in order to protect against coastal flooding.” The report said that the zoning amendment was an “appropriate and measured response to climate change and expected increases in coastal flooding.” The court said such a purpose was “reasonably and rationally related to one of the principal purposes of zoning.”