Laserfiche WebLink
March 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin <br />See also: Rural Water Co., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town <br />of Ridgefield, 287 Conn. 282, 947 A.2d 944 (2008). <br />See also: Grillo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City. of West Haven, <br />206 Conn. 362, 537 A.2d 1030 (1988). <br />See also: Pike v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hampton, 31 <br />Conn. App. 270, 624 A.2d 909 (1993). <br />See also: Culinary Institute of America v. Board of Zoning Appeals <br />of City of New Haven, 143 Conn. 257, 121 A.2d 637 (1956). <br />Case Note: <br />The City had also argued that one board member should have disqualified <br />himself from the proceedings due to a purported conflict of interest. The <br />trial court agreed and sustained the City's appeal on this claim. This issue <br />was not addressed on appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court noted that it was not the ZBA 's function to vary the <br />application of the Zoning Regulations "merely because the regulations <br />[hindered Mark] from putting fits] property to a more profitable use. " Any <br />grievances that Mark had with the Zoning Regulations should be directed to <br />the zoning commission that created the zoning plan, not the board when <br />seeking a variance, said the court. <br />Procedure —Permit applicant <br />claims protracted review <br />process caused their application <br />to be deemed approved under <br />state statutory law <br />Meanwhile, adjacent property owner intervenes <br />and argues permit should be denied on the <br />merits <br />Citation: Brisson Stone LLC v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 15, <br />2016 WL 555809 (Vt..2016) <br />8 ©2016 Thomson Reuters <br />