Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning Zoning Comm

19 Citing cases

  1. Jalowiec Realty Assoc. v. Ansonia PZC

    2004 Ct. Sup. 19593 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

    "These principles govern all mandamus actions, even those involving presumed approvals of site plans." Summitwood Associates Phase IV v. Planning Commission, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. 391584 (August 7, 1998, Blue, J.) (22 Conn. Law. Rptr. 660, 664) citing Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 37 Conn.App. 348, 353-54, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995). Jalowiec argues that it is entitled to a certificate of approval for its application under General Statutes §§ 8-3(g) and 8-7d(b).

  2. Miles v. Foley

    54 Conn. App. 645 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 12 times

    The legislature's adoption of Public Act 92-191 manifests an intention to limit the circumstances under which a planning commission can refuse to process and reach the merits of an application. The decision in Winchester Woods Associates is consistent with our decision in Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 37 Conn. App. 348, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995). In Par Developers, Ltd., § 4.7 of a town's subdivision regulations provided that, if land in a proposed subdivision was located in a wetlands or watercourse area, a copy of the application must be filed with the wetlands commission.

  3. J.R.A. L.P. v. Planning Zoning Comm

    278 Conn. 408 (Conn. 2006)   Cited 39 times
    Declining to review claim because defendants did not raise it adequately before trial court

    Next, we address the plaintiff's claim that the trial court improperly decided that the site plan application violated city zoning regulations. Relying on the Appellate Court's decision in Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 37 Conn. App. 348, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995), the trial court declined to issue a writ of mandamus because it found that the plaintiff's application violated § 720.12.2 of the city zoning regulations. See id., 354 ("[w]here the effect of automatic approval would result in a questionable certificate of approval because another law is violated, the plaintiff's right to have the duty performed is far from clear").

  4. Fagan v. City of Stamford

    179 Conn. App. 440 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 7 times

    In hearing administrative appeals such as the present one, the Superior Court acts as an appellate body. See General Statutes § 4–183 (j) ; see also Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council , 286 Conn. 57, 85, 942 A.2d 345 (2008) (noting that Superior Court sits "in an appellate capacity" when reviewing administrative appeal); Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 37 Conn. App. 348, 353, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995) (distinguishing administrative appeals in which Superior Court "reviewed the agency's decision in an appellate capacity").The relevant facts, as gleaned from the amended return of record that was submitted by agreement of the parties, are largely undisputed.

  5. Lawrence v. Dep't of Energy & Envtl. Prot.

    178 Conn. App. 615 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 8 times

    In hearing administrative appeals such as the present one, the Superior Court acts as an appellate body. See General Statutes § 4–183(j) ; see also Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council , 286 Conn. 57, 85, 942 A.2d 345 (2008) (noting that Superior Court sits "in an appellate capacity" when reviewing administrative appeal); Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 37 Conn. App. 348, 353, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995) (distinguishing administrative appeals in which Superior Court "reviewed the agency's decision in an appellate capacity").The facts relevant to this appeal are not in dispute.

  6. Lawrence v. Dep't of Energy & Envtl. Prot.

    AC 39496 (Conn. App. Ct. Dec. 12, 2017)

    In hearing administrative appeals such as the present one, the Superior Court acts as an appellate body. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j); see also Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council, 286 Conn. 57, 85, 942 A.2d 345 (2008) (noting that Superior Court sits "in an appellate capacity" when reviewing administrative appeal); Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 37 Conn. App. 348, 353, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995) (distinguishing administrative appeals in which Superior Court "reviewed the agency's decision in an appellate capacity"). The facts relevant to this appeal are not in dispute.

  7. Greenwood Manor, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Comm'n

    150 Conn. App. 489 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    In hearing appeals from decisions of a planning and zoning commission, the Superior Court acts as an appellate body. See General Statutes § 8–8; see also Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 37 Conn.App. 348, 353, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995) (noting zoning appeals in which Superior Court “reviewed the agency's decision in an appellate capacity”).The relevant facts largely are undisputed. The plaintiff owns a 9.

  8. Mackenzie v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Monroe

    146 Conn. App. 406 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 29 times
    In MacKenzie, the Appellate Court contrasted the facts before it, which involved altering requirements imposed on a particular parcel in a manner that distinguished it from other properties in the same zone, with other devices, such as floating zones and planned development districts, which involve a legislative decision relating to the creation or alteration of the underlying zones themselves.

    In hearing appeals from decisions of a planning and zoning commission, the Superior Court acts as an appellate body. See General Statutes § 8–8; see also Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 37 Conn.App. 348, 353, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995) (noting zoning appeals in which Superior Court “reviewed the agency's decision in an appellate capacity”). At all relevant times, the defendant owned a 4.027 acre parcel of land known as 579 Main Street in Monroe (property).

  9. N. Haven Holdings Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of North Haven

    146 Conn. App. 316 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 5 times
    Zoning commission "necessarily considered ‘the public health, safety and general welfare’ " as required by zoning regulations for special permit approval

    In hearing appeals from decisions of a planning and zoning commission, the Superior Court acts as an appellate body. See General Statutes § 8–8; see also Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 37 Conn.App. 348, 353, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995) (noting zoning appeals in which Superior Court “reviewed the agency's decision in an appellate capacity”).At all relevant times, the defendant owned a parcel of land known as 240 Universal Drive North in North Haven (town) that abuts the plaintiff's property located at 100 Universal Drive North. The two parcels were separated by an access road located on the defendant's property, over which the plaintiff had an access easement.

  10. Megin v. Zoning Board of Appeals

    106 Conn. App. 602 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 35 times
    In Megin v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 106 Conn.App. 602, 607-08, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 901 (2008), the Appellate Court noted: "We generally employ a deferential standard of review to the actions of a zoning board... [C]ourts are not to substitute their judgment for that of the board, and... the decisions of local boards will not be disturbed as long as honest judgment has been reasonably and fairly made after a full hearing..."

    In hearing the plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the zoning board of appeals, the Superior Court acts as an appellate body. See General Statutes § 8-8; see also Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 37 Conn. App. 348, 353, 655 A.2d 1164 (1995) (noting zoning appeals in which Superior Court "reviewed the agency's decision in an appellate capacity"). At issue in this appeal is the storage of numerous motor vehicles and related debris on 64 Old Town Park Road, which is located in an R-40 residential zone of the town and at all relevant times was owned by the plaintiff.