Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals

556 A.2d 1024, 211 Conn. 76, 1989 Conn. LEXIS 111

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMay 2, 1989

Docket13521

StatusPublished

Cited by96 cases

This text of 556 A.2d 1024 (Stankiewicz v. 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

Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 556 A.2d 1024, 211 Conn. 76, 1989 Conn. LEXIS 111 (Colo. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this zoning appeal, the sole issue is the extent of the Superior Court’s authority to search the record to supplement the reasons given by a local zoning board to explain its decision to grant a variance. The trial court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs, Robert Stankiewicz and Cheryl Stankiewicz, from the decision of the defendant zoning board of appeals of the town of Montville (board). The board had granted variances from local bulk area regulations and setback requirements to the defendants Joseph Fisher and Marjorie Fisher to enable them to build a garage on their lot on Lake Drive in Montville. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that there was no basis in the record to sustain the board’s conclusion that the Fishers’ hardship was unique. The court nonetheless dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal because its own examination of the record led it to conclude that application of the zoning regulations to the Fishers’ lot was confiscatory and that granting variances to the Fishers would not interfere with the local comprehensive zoning plan.

On the plaintiffs’ further appeal to the Appellate Court, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 15 Conn. App. 729, 546 A.2d 919 (1988). We granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that if a zoning board gives inadequate reasons for granting a variance, as opposed to giving no reasons [78]*78whatever, the trial court may search the record to determine whether basis exists for the action taken?” (Emphasis in original.) Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 209 Conn. 815, 550 A.2d 1084 (1988).

After examining the record on appeal, and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

In this zoning appeal, the sole issue is the extent of the Superior Court’s authority to search the record to supplement the reasons given by a local zoning board to explain its decision to grant a variance. The trial court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs, Robert Stankiewicz and Cheryl Stankiewicz, from the decision of the defendant zoning board of appeals of the town of Montville (board). The board had granted variances from local bulk area regulations and setback requirements to the defendants Joseph Fisher and Marjorie Fisher to enable them to build a garage on their lot on Lake Drive in Montville. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that there was no basis in the record to sustain the board’s conclusion that the Fishers’ hardship was unique. The court nonetheless dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal because its own examination of the record led it to conclude that application of the zoning regulations to the Fishers’ lot was confiscatory and that granting variances to the Fishers would not interfere with the local comprehensive zoning plan.

On the plaintiffs’ further appeal to the Appellate Court, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 15 Conn. App. 729, 546 A.2d 919 (1988). We granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that if a zoning board gives inadequate reasons for granting a variance, as opposed to giving no reasons [78]*78whatever, the trial court may search the record to determine whether basis exists for the action taken?” (Emphasis in original.) Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 209 Conn. 815, 550 A.2d 1084 (1988).

After examining the record on appeal, and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 A.2d 1024, 211 Conn. 76, 1989 Conn. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stankiewicz-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-conn-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack