Dicamillo v. Town of Stratford, No. Cv94 031 50 19 S (Jul. 19, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Dicamillo v. Town of Stratford, No. Cv94 031 50 19 S (Jul. 19, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5123-SS

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 19, 1996

DocketNo. CV94 031 50 19 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5123-SS (Dicamillo v. Town of Stratford, No. Cv94 031 50 19 S (Jul. 19, 1996)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dicamillo v. Town of Stratford, No. Cv94 031 50 19 S (Jul. 19, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5123-SS (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER RE: REPORT OF ATTORNEY TRIAL REFEREE This matter was tried before an attorney trial referee who found that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to them by not bringing an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 8-6 and § 8-7. The attorney trial referee found that the Zoning Commission refused to issue the Certificate of Occupancy because the project violated the express conditions set by the town. General Statutes § 8-6 and § 8-7 provide that a challenge of a decision by the official charged with enforcement of zoning regulations must be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Pursuant to Pilato v. Kapur, 22 Conn. App. 282, 284,576 A.2d 1315, cert. granted in part, 216 Conn. 813, 580 A.2d 67 (199), the case is remanded to the attorney trial referee to determine if the decision not to issue the Certificate of Occupancy was made by "the official charged with the enforcement" of the zoning laws.

JOHN W. MORAN, JUDGE

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER RE: REPORT OF ATTORNEY TRIAL REFEREE This matter was tried before an attorney trial referee who found that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to them by not bringing an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 8-6 and § 8-7. The attorney trial referee found that the Zoning Commission refused to issue the Certificate of Occupancy because the project violated the express conditions set by the town. General Statutes § 8-6 and § 8-7 provide that a challenge of a decision by the official charged with enforcement of zoning regulations must be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Pursuant to Pilato v. Kapur, 22 Conn. App. 282, 284,576 A.2d 1315, cert. granted in part, 216 Conn. 813, 580 A.2d 67 (199), the case is remanded to the attorney trial referee to determine if the decision not to issue the Certificate of Occupancy was made by "the official charged with the enforcement" of the zoning laws.

JOHN W. MORAN, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5123-SS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicamillo-v-town-of-stratford-no-cv94-031-50-19-s-jul-19-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack