Charles Holdings, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals

544 A.2d 633, 208 Conn. 476, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 190
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedAugust 2, 1988
Docket13377
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 544 A.2d 633 (Charles Holdings, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles Holdings, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 544 A.2d 633, 208 Conn. 476, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 190 (Colo. 1988).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Charles Holdings, Ltd., from a decision of the trial court dismissing its appeal from three decisions of the defendant, the planning and zoning board of appeals of Greenwich (board). Examination of the record discloses that on December 30,1985, the board rendered three decisions concerning the plaintiffs proposal to erect a chapel/mausoleum on land located within an RA-2 residential zone. The board denied: (1) the plaintiffs appeal from a decision of the building inspector who had refused to issue a building permit for the proposed structure; (2) a proposed variance of the use requirements in an RA-2 zone to permit the proposed structure; and (3) a special exception request to permit a cemetery on the plaintiffs premises.

On January 10,1986, the plaintiff appealed all three decisions to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8.1 The trial court upheld the board’s deci[478]*478sion in each instance and on October 7,1987, rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. The Appellate Court thereafter granted a petition for certification and the plaintiff appealed. This court then transferred the matter to itself pursuant to Practice Book § 4023.

“The threshold question that must be determined is whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Although this issue was not raised by the parties, the court has a duty to dismiss, even on its own initiative, any appeal that it lacks jurisdiction to hear. L. G. DeFelice & Son, Inc. v. Wethersfield, 167 Conn. 509, 511, 356 A.2d 144 (1975); Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 574, 87 A.2d 137 (1952); In re Application of Smith, 133 Conn. 6, 8, 47 A.2d 521 (1946).” Sasso v. Aleshin, 197 Conn. 87, 89-90, 495 A.2d 1066 (1985).

In initiating its appeal to the Superior Court, the plaintiffs citation to the serving authority commanded him “to summon the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Greenwich.”2 Examination of the sheriffs return discloses that he made service “by leaving a true and attested copy of the original Writ, Summons and Complaint with my doings thereon [479]*479endorsed, with and in the hands of Mr. Harris, Town Clerk. ” (Emphasis added.) Neither the chairman nor the clerk of the board was served.

General Statutes § 8-8 provides, in addition to requiring service upon the town clerk, that “[njotice of such appeal shall be given by leaving a true and attested copy thereof with . . . the chairman or clerk of said board . . . . ” It is clear that, in this respect, the plaintiff has not complied with § 8-8 (b).

“Appeals to the courts from . . . boards exist only under statutory authority . . . .” Tazza v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 164 Conn. 187, 190, 319 A.2d 393 (1972); East Side Civic Assn. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 161 Conn. 558, 560, 290 A.2d 348 (1971). “ ‘ “Appellate jurisdiction is derived from the . . . statutory provisions by which it is created, and can be acquired and exercised only in the manner prescribed. Thus, the determination of the existence and extent of appellate jurisdiction depends upon the terms of the statutory . . . provisions in which it has its source.” 4 Am. Jur. 2d 535, Appeal and Error, § 4.’ LaReau v. Reincke, 158 Conn. 486, 492, 264 A.2d 576 [1969].” (Emphasis added.) In re Nunez, 165 Conn. 435, 441, 334 A.2d 898 (1973).

Since the issuing officer did not serve the chairman or clerk of the board as required by § 8-8 (b), the predicate for appellate jurisdiction does not exist and therefore we lack the authority to take up this appeal. Andrew Ansaldi Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 207 Conn. 67, 70, 540 A.2d 59 (1988).

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Thomas J.
822 A.2d 323 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2003)
Brookridge District Ass'n v. Planning & Zoning Commission
793 A.2d 215 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2002)
Pleszko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv98 034 95 04 (Apr. 17, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5332 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
West Broad Street v. Stamford Zoning Bd., No. Cv99 0174817s (Feb. 14, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2592 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Republic Realty v. Planning Commission, No. Cv97-0142928s (Jan. 18, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1117 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Frumento v. City of West Haven, No. 417928 (Nov. 17, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 14177 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Ozanne v. Darien Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv99 0173450 S (Oct. 10, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 12429 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Linville v. Norwalk Zoning Brd. of App., No. Cv98 0168517 S (Aug. 1, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 9433 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Gadbois v. Planning Comm., the Town, East Lyme, No. 551104 (Jun. 27, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 7787 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Security Pacific v. Dubinsky, No. Cv-99-0593792s (Mar. 14, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4722 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
City of Torrington v. Harwinton Z. Comm., No. Cv98-0078016 (Jul. 30, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 9878 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Backiel v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv97 034 86 17 S (Apr. 5, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5023 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Beizer v. State of Conn. Dept. of Labor, No. Cv 97-0569653 S (Sep. 24, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11174 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Ensign-Bickford Realty Corp. v. Zoning Commission
715 A.2d 701 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)
Mitri v. Trumbull Planning Zoning Comm., No. Cv97 034 54 66 (Dec. 24, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13203 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Hope's Architectural Products, Inc. v. Fox Steel Co.
692 A.2d 829 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1997)
Nutrico, Inc. v. Frank's Nursery Crafts, No. Cv96329778 (Mar. 19, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2734 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Clinton v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., No. 07 20 24 (Dec. 11, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13858 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility Control
662 A.2d 1251 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
544 A.2d 633, 208 Conn. 476, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-holdings-ltd-v-planning-zoning-board-of-appeals-conn-1988.