Harris v. Zoning Commission

341 Citing cases

  1. Prince George's Cnty. Council v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George's Cnty.

    485 Md. 150 (Md. 2023)   Cited 4 times
    In Concerned Citizens, a group of Prince George's County citizens filed a petition for judicial review of a District Council bill amending a zoning ordinance's table of uses to exempt Freeway Airport, an accident-plagued small private airport, from housing and development density restrictions generally applicable to properties in residential-agricultural (R-A) zone.

    Moreover, courts in the out-of-state cases that we reviewed in Anderson House required the same showing. 402 Md. at 714-15, 939 A.2d 116 (citing Rumson Ests. , 177 N.J. 338, 828 A.2d 317 and Harris v. Zoning Comm'n of New Milford , 259 Conn. 402, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002) ). We distinguished the regulations in those cases from ones that did not further the public welfare, which were consequently invalidated.

  2. Drewnowski v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of the Town of Suffield

    220 Conn. App. 430 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Zoning Commission , 259 Conn. 402, 423, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). That obligation stems from the "strong presumption of regularity" that attaches to municipal land use agency decision making.

  3. Verrillo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Branford

    155 Conn. App. 657 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 40 times
    Describing “fundamental distinction between the legislative function of the zoning commission ... and the administrative and quasi-judicial functions of the zoning board of appeals,” in noting that “[i]f the requirements of the [zone] are particularly oppressive to the many ... properties therein, the proper forum for redress is the town zoning commission”

    (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402, 423, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). Our inquiry begins, therefore, with the question of whether the board “rendered a formal, official, collective statement of reasons for its action.”

  4. Hayes Family L.P. v. Manchester PZC

    2005 Ct. Sup. 4756 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402, 409 (2002). In RYA Corp. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 87 Conn.App. 658, 662-64 (2005), the Appellate Court reiterated the law on standing to appeal a decision from a planning and zoning commission.

  5. Campformio v. Greenwich PZC

    2002 Ct. Sup. 5472 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    (Brackets in original; citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402, 409, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). The burden of proving aggrievement rests with the plaintiff.

  6. Tillman v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of City of Shelton

    341 Conn. 117 (Conn. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    This statutory provision requires that zoning regulations "are sufficiently precise so as to apprise both the zoning commission and an applicant of what is required, as well as to provide guidance to the zoning commission in applying the regulation, and to ensure equal treatment to each applicant subject to the regulation." Harris v. Zoning Commission , 259 Conn. 402, 434–35, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). "The obvious purpose of [this requirement] ... is to assure property owners that there shall be no improper discrimination, all owners of the same class and in the same district being treated alike with provision for relief in cases of exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship by action of the zoning board of appeals."

  7. Douglas v. Watertown PZC

    2009 Ct. Sup. 12236 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)

    (Emphasis in original.) Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402, 410 n. 12, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). In the present case, the landed plaintiff owns land in an area, which the commission added an overlay zone.

  8. Novak v. Town of Woodbury

    2006 Ct. Sup. 17613 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)

    She argues that she is being specially and injuriously affected by the decision because she (1) is not receiving the same rights and protections afforded to others under the regulations, (2) has to or may have to endure uses by an adjoining property owner that contravene the zoning regulations and (3) may suffer a diminution in the value of her property. In support of these arguments, she analogizes the general amendment of "structure" to amendments to zoning regulations discussed in Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002), and Lewis v. Planning Zoning Commission, 62 Conn.App. 284, 771 A.2d 167 (2001). "[T]he amendment to the definition of the term "[s]tructure" contained in the Amended Regulations was adopted as part of a plan or scheme to benefit the WCA so as to permit its aforementioned unlawful use of the WCA [p]roperty . . ."

  9. RUSCITO v. ZBA

    2005 Ct. Sup. 5552 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402, 409, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). "Aggrievement is an issue of fact . . . and credibility is for the trier of the facts."

  10. Orange Residents Assn. v. Orange

    2003 Ct. Sup. 8894 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003)

    (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402, 409, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). The burden of proving aggrievement rests with the plaintiff.