Little v. Planning & Zoning Commission

287 A.2d 741, 161 Conn. 563
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided April 13, 1971·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Where a zoning authority states the reasons for its action as required by § 8-3 of the General Statutes, the question on appeal is simply whether those reasons are reasonably supported by the record and are pertinent to the considerations which the zoning authority is required to apply under the zoning regulations. Zieky v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 265, 267, 196 A.2d 758.

[564] We find no error in the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim that the defendant commission acted arbitrarily or illegally and thus abused the discretion vested in it. Stiles v. Town Council, 159 Conn. 212, 219, 268 A.2d 395.

There is no error.

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

Little v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 287 A.2d 741, 161 Conn. 563 (Colo. 1971).

287 A.2d 741 (Little v. Planning & Zoning Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stiles v. Town Council
268 A.2d 395 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1970)
Zieky v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission
196 A.2d 758 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1963)