From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McLoughlin v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Bethel

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 24, 2020
335 Conn. 978 (Conn. 2020)

Opinion

11-24-2020

B. Shawn MCLOUGHLIN et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF BETHEL

Daniel E. Casagrande, Danbury, in support of the petition. Charles R. Andres, in opposition.


Daniel E. Casagrande, Danbury, in support of the petition.

Charles R. Andres, in opposition.

The plaintiffs' petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 200 Conn. App. 307, 240 A.3d 709 (2020), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that, under St. Joseph's High School, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 176 Conn. App. 570, 170 A.3d 73 (2017), a zoning commission can deny a special use permit application based on noncompliance with the general standards enumerated in the zoning regulations despite full compliance with the technical requirements?

"2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, did the Appellate Court correctly determine that substantial evidence supported the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission to deny the plaintiffs' special use permit application?''

KELLER, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.


Summaries of

McLoughlin v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Bethel

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 24, 2020
335 Conn. 978 (Conn. 2020)
Case details for

McLoughlin v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Bethel

Case Details

Full title:B. Shawn MCLOUGHLIN et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN…

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Nov 24, 2020

Citations

335 Conn. 978 (Conn. 2020)
241 A.3d 131

Citing Cases

Parker v. Zoning Comm'n of Town of Wash.

" (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) McLoughlin v. Planning &…

McLoughlin v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of the Town of Bethel

And (2) "If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, did the Appellate Court correctly…