Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2011 ( Volume 5 I No. 18 <br />Board merely stated, "without support," that there was no evidence to <br />support the Neighbors' concerns. This was inadequate, concluded the <br />court. <br />See also: Carney v. City of Baltimore, 201 Md. 130, 93 A.2d 74 (1952). <br />See also: Montgomery County v. Rotwein, 169 Md. App. 716, 906 A.2d <br />959 (2006). <br />See also: Schultz v. Prins, 291 Md. 1, 432 A.2d 1319 (1981). <br />See also: Bucktail, LLC v. County Council of Talbot County, 352 Md. <br />530, 723 A.2d 440 (1999). <br />Standing —Landowners Challenge Amendment <br />Redefining Buildable Lot in Zoning District <br />Landowners maintain they can bring the challenge based on <br />their established statutory aggrievement <br />Citation: Lucas v. Zoning Com'n of Town of Harwinton, 130 Conn. <br />App. 587, 2011 WL 3274243 (2011) <br />CONNECTICUT (08/09/11)—This case addresses the types of ag- <br />grievement—classic and statutory —that must be alleged and proven in <br />order to bring a case in trial court. <br />The Background/Facts: James Lucas and Leslie B. Lucas (the "Lucas - <br />es") owned property in a country residential zone ("CR zone") in the <br />town of Harwinton, Connecticut (the "Town"). In September 2008, the <br />Town adopted an amendment to § 2.3 of its zoning regulations. The ad- <br />opted amendment redefined buildable area in the CR zone. <br />The Lucases' appealed to court on several grounds from the Town's <br />decision approving the amendment. The court dismissed the appeal on <br />the ground that the Lucases failed to plead facts sufficient to establish <br />either classical or statutory aggrievement. <br />The Lucases appealed. <br />DECISION: Reversed, and matter remanded. <br />The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the Lucases had plead- <br />ed sufficient facts in their complaint to allege statutory aggrievement. <br />The court explained that in order for the Lucases to have standing <br />to bring this administrative appeal, they had to be aggrieved. In other <br />words, for the trial court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the <br />Lucases' appeal of the amendment, the Lucases had to plead and prove <br />aggrievement. The court further explained that there are "[t]wo broad <br />yet distinct categories of aggrievement": classical and statutory. The <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />