From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Horvath v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jun 8, 1972
316 A.2d 418 (Conn. 1972)

Opinion

Argued June 8, 1972

Decided June 8, 1972

Appeal from the granting of a special exception, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Litchfield County and tried to the court, Mignone, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. No error.

Peter K. Sivaslian, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Victor M. Muschell, for the appellee (defendant John Erichetti Associates); with him, on the brief, was Harry Ossen, corporation counsel, for the appellee (named defendant).


This is an appeal from the granting of a special exception under the zoning ordinances of the town of Torrington permitting the erection of a multifamily dwelling group.

There was conflicting evidence before the zoning board of appeals and the trial court could not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Sobol v. Planning Zoning Commission, 158 Conn. 623, 262 A.2d 185. The appeal record discloses that there was competent and sufficient evidence before the board to justify the result reached. The trial court was correct in concluding that the plaintiffs failed to sustain the burden of proving that the board acted illegally, arbitrarily or in abuse of its discretion.


Summaries of

Horvath v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jun 8, 1972
316 A.2d 418 (Conn. 1972)
Case details for

Horvath v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Case Details

Full title:STELLA HORVATH ET AL. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF TORRINGTON…

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Jun 8, 1972

Citations

316 A.2d 418 (Conn. 1972)
163 Conn. 609

Citing Cases

Wiltzius v. Zoning Board

The plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the board acted improperly. Horvath v. Zoning Board of Appeals,…

Whittaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals

The burden of proof to demonstrate that the board acted improperly is upon the plaintiffs. Horvath v. Zoning…