Hughes v. Town Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of North Haven
| Decision Date | 28 May 1968 |
| Citation | 242 A.2d 705,156 Conn. 505 |
| Parties | R. Dale HUGHES et al. v. TOWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF NORTH HAVEN et al. (two cases). |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
John T. Cummiskey, Jr., New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was David B. Salzman, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Donald F. Keefe, New Haven, for appellee (defendant Albert Swanson, Inc.).
Lawrence J. Carboni, New Haven, for appellee (named defendant).
Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.
The appeals in these two cases have been combined on the stipulation of the parties. Practice Book § 606. The defendant Albert Swanson, Inc., applied to the defendant town planning and zoning commission for permission to subdivide a tract of land in North Haven. The commission approved the revised subdivision plan, subject to indicated corrections of graded areas. The plaintiffs took two appeals to the Court of Common Pleas, one by process dated November 30, 1966, and the other by process dated December 28, 1966. The court concluded that the first appeal was premature and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The issues were found for the defendants on the second appeal, and that appeal was dismissed. The present combined appeal is taken from both judgments.
There is no finding, and consequently we resort to the memorandum of decision in order to learn the basis for the court's decision. Wooster v. Wm. C. A. Fischer Plumbing & Heating Co., 153 Conn. 700, 701, 220 A.2d 449; In re Application of Koenig, 152 Conn. 125, 130, 204 A.2d 33. There we find that the court concluded that the first appeal was premature under § 8-28 of the General Statutes because it preceded the final action of the commission, which occurred on December 19, 1966, the notice of which was published the following day. As to the second appeal, the court concluded that the record before the commission fully supported the reasons which it recited for its action, which, in turn, conformed to the requirements of the applicable regulations.
The substance of both appeals was the same. The court states that both cases were heard on the record of the proceedings before the commission, that no evidence was presented on the issue of the plaintiffs' aggrievement, and that there was nothing in the record and exhibits upon which a finding that the plaintiffs were aggrieved could be predicated. It is stated, instead, that all defendants admitted the plaintiffs' allegations of aggrievement. On this appeal, the defendants take the position that, 'the trial court to the contrary notwithstanding, we think that the aggrievement of the plaintiffs, or some of them, was sufficiently shown.'
The record discloses that in each appeal the plaintiffs alleged that they were aggrieved by the commission's action. In each appeal, the defendant Albert Swanson, Inc., admitted, but the defendant the town planning and zoning commission denied, that the plaintiffs were aggrieved. Aggrievement was thus made an issue on the pleadings, and it was the plaintiffs' burden not only to allege but also to prove 'that they were aggrieved by showing that they had a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision as distinguished from a general interest such as is the concern of all members of the community and that they were specially and injuriously affected in their property or other legal rights.' Krejpcio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 657, 660, 211 Ad.2d 687; Tucker v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 510, 514, 199 A.2d 685.
Unless the plaintiffs could establish that they were aggrieved, they had no standing to appeal. General Statutes § 8-28; I. R. Stich Associates, Inc. v. Town Council, 155 Conn. 1, 3, 229 A.2d 545. Although the plaintiffs alleged aggrievement in their appeal, they did not set forth the manner in which they claimed to have been aggrieved by the decision of the commission. Allegations and proof of mere generalizations and fears are not enough to establish aggrievement. Joyce v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 150 Conn. 696, 698, 187 A.2d. 239....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nader v. Altermatt
...159 Conn. 1, 13, 266 A.2d 396; Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 156 Conn. 622, 623, 238 A.2d 413; Hughes v. Town Planning & Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 505, 507-508, 242 A.2d 705; Gregorio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 422, 425-426, 232 A.2d 330; I. R. Stich Associates, Inc. v. ......
-
Lime Rock Park, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Salisbury
... ... finding that the Park is aggrieved. See Hughes v. Town ... Planning & Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 505, 509, ... 242 A.2d 705 (1968); ... broad authority to enact or amend zoning regulations ... Protect Hamden/North Haven from Excessive Traffic & ... Pollution, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 220 ... ...
-
Mayer v. Historic Dist. Comm'n of Groton
...area involved in the commission's action would not be enough" to establish their classical aggrievement. Hughes v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 156 Conn. 505, 508, 242 A.2d 705 (1968) ; see, e.g., Edgewood Village, Inc. v. Housing Authority , supra, 265 Conn. at 293, 828 A.2d 52.The other......
-
Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill
...is an essential prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction of the subject matter of the appeal. Hughes v. Town Planning & Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 505, 509, 242 A.2d 705. The plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in determining the standards for aggrievement under § 25-17. The plain......