Tim Hollister practices land use, environmental and municipal law, and handles a wide range of real estate and administrative law problems that arise in the context of land use and environmental matters. He has represented developers, corporations, property owners, municipalities, boards of education, and neighborhood and environmental groups in administrative proceedings before local, state, regional and federal agencies and litigation in the state and federal trial courts, and has argued more than 40 cases in the state and federal appellate courts.
Tim has specific experience in eminent domain and inverse condemnation, unconstitutional takings, exactions and other civil rights violations, workforce and affordable housing, fair housing, wetlands regulation, drafting and enforcement of land use regulations, inclusionary zoning, flood plain management, mineral rights, riparian rights, specific performance, landlord and tenant, quiet title, title insurance, tax appeals, broker's commissions and foreclosures. He has been recognized nationally for his work in workforce and affordable housing development, wetlands regulation, and eminent domain.
Represented the Home Builders Association of Connecticut in the landmark exclusionary zoning case Builders' Service Corp. v. East Hampton Planning and Zoning Commission, 208 Conn. 267 (1988). Also handled more than 90 matters under Connecticut's affordable housing law, including the first case under the statute, TCR New Canaan v. Trumbull Planning and Zoning Commission, 6 Conn. L. Rptr. 4, 91 (1992); and two landmark cases under the statute, AvalonBay Communities v. Town of Orange, 256 Conn. 557 (2001) and River Bend Associates v. Zoning Commission, 271 Conn. 1 (2004).
Since 1990, Shipman & Goodwin has represented applicants/developers in workforce and affordable housing applications in Avon, Beacon Falls, Berlin, Bethany, Bethel, Canton, Cheshire, Danbury, Darien, East Haven, East Lyme, Fairfield, Hamden, Lisbon, Milford, Monroe, New Canaan, New Milford, Newtown, North Canaan, Norwalk, Orange, Oxford, Ridgefield, Simsbury, South Windsor, Stamford, Stratford, Thomaston, Tolland, Trumbull, Wallingford, Westport, and Wilton.
In 2016, represented Signature Contracting Group of Norwalk, CT in obtaining approvals for a 52 unit apartment development, “Essex Station,” in Essex, CT; and obtained court approval of a 180 unit apartment development on Wheelers Farms Road in Milford, CT, Milford Developers L.L.C. v. Milford Zoning Board (Superior Court, Land Use Litigation Docket).
Secured a victory in Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection. Tilcon filed applications for water diversion permits in 2003, but DEEP’s processing evolved into a dispute over the agency’s authority under the Connecticut Water Diversion Policy Act (Act) to use the permit process to demand information about, and to regulate, Tilcon’s earth-excavation activities. In response to the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEEP) demand for information about Tilcon’s earth excavation activities, Tilcon filed a petition for a declaratory ruling to address the scope of the DEEP’s authority. The DEEP Commissioner deemed all of the Department’s actions authorized under the Act. In its July 28, 2015 ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the DEEP Commissioner and the trial court decision, accepting arguments made by the Shipman & Goodwin team, that: (1) the Water Diversion Policy Act cannot be used to regulate earth materials excavation activities; (2) the Act does not authorize DEEP to reopen a duly issued wetlands permit; and (3) the DEEP cannot delay the processing of other permits as a way to leverage its demands under the Act. This ruling has the potential to benefit all businesses subject to Connecticut environmental regulations. To read more about Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, click here.
View All »
Your e-mail and any information in your e-mail to this individual are
not protected by the attorney client privilege. Therefore your e-mail
should not contain any confidential information and should be for
general information purposes only. The e-mail to this individual is not
intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client