Timothy S Hollister

Practice Areas

Real Estate

Land Use & Development

Environmental

Career

Hinckley Allen, Partner (2021-Present)

Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Partner (1992-2021)

Professional Memberships

American Bar Association

American Planning Association

Connecticut Bar Association, Environmental Law Section, Executive Committee (1992-Present), Chair (1996-1997), Member, Planning and Zoning Section (1992-Present), Chair, Affordable Housing and Homelessness Committee (2005-2008)

Experience

Tim Hollister practices land use, environmental and municipal law, and handles a wide range of real estate and administrative law challenges 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. He has argued more than 50 cases in the state and federal appellate courts.

When representing applicants seeking land use and environmental permits, Tim’s approach is to work closely with the team of experts and consultants to present the application in a professional, procedurally correct, substantively compliant, and cost-conscious manner, and to create an administrative record that will lead the agency to grant approval.

He is recognized both regionally and nationally for his work in workforce and affordable housing development, wetlands regulation, and eminent domain. Tim also has specific experience in inverse condemnation, unconstitutional takings, exactions and other civil rights violations, fair housing, 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.

Expert in these Jurisdictions

Connecticut

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

United States Supreme Court

Education

Awards

Work Highlights

Author of a five-part series on legislative reforms to promote affordable housing in the 2025 state legislative session, published by the Connecticut Mirror, September 2024.

Represented developers Wheelers Farm Partners LLC and Greenview Equities in the approval of a zoning regulation amendment, rezoning, and Preliminary Development Plan for the redevelopment of a 47 acre, five building, 460,000 sf, underperforming office park in Milford, CT.

Rainbow Housing Corp. v Town of Cromwell: Successfully represented Rainbow Housing Corporation and its affiliate Gilead Community Services, subsidiaries of mental health services providers Connecticut Institute for the Blind and Oak Hill, in a tax exemption case in the Connecticut Superior Court, and then as co-counsel in the Supreme Court.

Secured a victory for a neighborhood group of more than 500 residents of the area around Lime Rock Racetrack in Salisbury, Connecticut, a victory in the Connecticut Supreme Court in the case of Lime Rock Park vs Salisbury Planning and Zoning Commission et al.. At issue was the right of the Salisbury Planning and Zoning Commission to adopt revised zoning regulations to control the proposed expansion of the Race Track from a regional, auto-club-based operation into a NASCAR-type national facility capable of hosting multi-day races. Such expansion would require racing on Sundays, which has been banned at Lime Rock since the late 1950’s by a court order in a noise nuisance case brought by neighbors of the Track. The trial court had ruled in 2018 that a state statute as amended in 1998 prohibited local zoning regulation from banning auto racing on Sundays. This ruling generated enormous pressure to prevail in this appeal, to protect the quality of life and property values of our hundreds of clients. The Supreme Court delivered a victory when it reversed the trial court, holding that the 1998 amendment to the state statute had rendered the law ambiguous as to Sunday racing, but the legislative history showed that the General Assembly could not have intended in 1998 to create a statewide right to conduct racing on Sundays, regardless of local regulations banning it.