Any person or persons severally or jointly aggrieved by any decision of the historic district commission or of any officer thereof may, within fifteen days from the date when such decision was rendered, take an appeal to the superior court for the judicial district in which such municipality is located, which appeal shall be made returnable to such court in the same manner as that prescribed for other civil actions brought to such court. Notice of such appeal shall be given by leaving a true and attested copy thereof in the hands of or at the usual place of abode of the chairman or clerk of the commission within twelve days before the return day to which such appeal has been taken. Procedure upon such appeal shall be the same as that defined in section
8-8.
(1961, P.A. 430, S. 11; P.A. 76-436, S. 282, 681; P.A. 78-280, S. 1, 127; P.A. 80-314, S. 9.)
History: P.A. 76-436 substituted superior court for court of common pleas and added reference to judicial district, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 78-280 deleted reference to county; P.A. 80-314 provided that appeal be made returnable to court in same manner as that prescribed for “other” civil actions.
See Sec. 51-197b re administrative appeals.
Cited. 153 C. 160; 171 C. 199; 189 C. 727. In appeals from administrative zoning decisions, decisions will be invalidated, even if they were reasonably supported by the record, if they were not supported by substantial evidence in the record; in an appeal from decision of a commission, the record is reviewed to determine whether there is factual support for commission's decision; should substantial evidence exist in record to support any basis or stated reason for commission's decision, the court must sustain that decision. 284 C. 838. Although judicial review of land use decisions is deferential, it is not a rubber stamp as a court cannot take view in every case that discretion exercised by local zoning authority must not be disturbed, for if it did the right of appeal would be empty. Id. Although defendant's decision in this case was guided by proper statutory factors under Sec. 7-147f, the application of those factors was not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, was an abuse of its discretion; because neighborly animosity and outcry are not, without more, factors for defendant's consideration under Sec. 7-147f(a), testimony does not support defendant's conclusion in this case. Id. This section and Sec. 8-8, when read together, do not provide for statutory aggrievement in historic district commission appeals. 325 C. 765.
If an appeal has been taken and the trial court remands a case to commission, the scope of the remand order determines the finality of the trial court's judgment for appeal purposes. 108 CA 682.
Notes of Decisions
Mayer v. Historic Dist. Comm'n of Groton, 160 A.3d 333 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 29× “The principal issue in this appeal is whether the statutory aggrievement principles of General Statutes § 8-8 1 extend to appeals from the decisions of historic district commissions brought pursuant to General Statutes § 7-147i. 2 The plaintiffs, Robert Mayer and Mary Pat Mayer,…”
Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Borough of Litchfield, 213 F. Supp. 3d 329 (D. Conn. 2016).
· cites it 4× “See C.G.S.A. § 7-147i. The Chabad argues that the limited nature of such appeals renders them incapable of providing sufficient protection to aggrieved parties, such that permitting an aggrieved party to sue individuals for damages is necessary.”
Morena v. Historic Dist. Comm'n, 934 A.2d 335 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 6× “On March 14, 2006, the defendant held a public hearing and again denied, without prejudice, the plaintiffs’ application with a unanimous vote.”
In re Crim. Complaint & Application for Arrest Warrant (Conn. 2024).
· cites it 2× “1 ,0 9 In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest Warrant decision of Historic District Commission to Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 7-147i); McWeeny v. Hartford, 287 Conn.”
In re Crim. Complaint & Application for Arrest Warrant, 350 Conn. 633 (Conn. 2024).
· cites it 2× “3d 333 (2017) (determin- ing whether plaintiffs had standing to appeal from decision of Historic District Commission to Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 7-147i); McWeeny v. Hartford, 287 Conn.”
Historic Dist. Comm'n v. Sciame (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 2× “2 ‘‘General Statutes § 7-147i provides in relevant part: ‘Any person or per- sons severally or jointly aggrieved by any decision of the historic district commission or of any officer thereof may, within fifteen days from the date when such decision was rendered, take an appeal…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.