Boyko v. Zoning Commission of Monroe, No. Cv 90 27 32 11 (Mar. 1, 1991)
Opinion
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he is aggrieved by the Commission's action. This burden of proof requires the plaintiff to establish that he is specially and injuriously affected in his property rights or other legal rights. Gregorio v. Zoning Board of Appeals,
The plaintiff owns and operates a restaurant in Monroe. The Commission's decision will allow the development of a restaurant in close proximity to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff contends the competition from a new restaurant will cause the value of his property to depreciate. A real estate appraiser opined that the competition will cause the value of the plaintiff's property to decline by fifteen percent. The underpinnings of the appraiser's opinion are weak and do not support the opinion. The plaintiff has established nothing more than a fear of anticipated business competition which is not sufficient to qualify the plaintiff as an aggrieved person. See Gregorio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra at 426; Whitney Theatre Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra at 288.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
GEORGE N. THIM, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1949 (Boyko v. Zoning Commission of Monroe, No. Cv 90 27 32 11 (Mar. 1, 1991)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.