Licamele v. Zoning Commission of Bridgeport

Connecticut Appellate Court

Licamele v. Zoning Commission of Bridgeport

601 A.2d 567, 26 Conn. App. 943, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 56

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 4, 1992

Docket10028

StatusPublished

This text of 601 A.2d 567 (Licamele v. Zoning Commission of Bridgeport) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Licamele v. Zoning Commission of Bridgeport, 601 A.2d 567, 26 Conn. App. 943, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 56 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the named plaintiff, Michael Licamele, from a judgment of the trial court affirming the actions of the defendant zoning commission in adopting an amendment to the Bridgeport zoning regulations. Licamele challenged the amendment on the basis of the alleged participation of a commissioner at a public hearing and executive session after she had disqualified herself from participating in the proceedings because of a potential conflict of interest. See General Statutes § 8-11. The trial court found no evidence to support Licamele’s allegation that the commissioner had participated in either the public hearing or the executive sessions at which the amendments were adopted.

[944]*944Our examination of the record in this matter, including the transcript of the testimony before the trial court, persuades us that the trial court’s judgment was correct and should be affirmed.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the named plaintiff, Michael Licamele, from a judgment of the trial court affirming the actions of the defendant zoning commission in adopting an amendment to the Bridgeport zoning regulations. Licamele challenged the amendment on the basis of the alleged participation of a commissioner at a public hearing and executive session after she had disqualified herself from participating in the proceedings because of a potential conflict of interest. See General Statutes § 8-11. The trial court found no evidence to support Licamele’s allegation that the commissioner had participated in either the public hearing or the executive sessions at which the amendments were adopted.

[944]*944Our examination of the record in this matter, including the transcript of the testimony before the trial court, persuades us that the trial court’s judgment was correct and should be affirmed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 A.2d 567, 26 Conn. App. 943, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/licamele-v-zoning-commission-of-bridgeport-connappct-1992.