(a) In each municipality having a zoning commission there shall be a zoning board of appeals consisting of five regular members and three alternate members, unless otherwise provided by special act. Such alternate members, also referred to as “the panel of alternates”, shall, when seated as herein provided, have all the powers and duties set forth in the general statutes relating to zoning boards of appeals and their members. The regular members and alternate members of such zoning board of appeals shall be electors and shall not be members of the zoning commission, any provision of any special act to the contrary notwithstanding. Such board and such panel of alternates shall, unless otherwise provided by special act, be elected or appointed in such manner and for such terms as is determined for each by ordinance adopted by the municipality. Any vacancy in such board, including any vacancy in the panel of alternates, unless otherwise provided by ordinance or special act, shall be filled for the unexpired portion of the term, by the board of selectmen of towns or the chief executive officer of cities and boroughs. Such board by vote of its regular members only shall elect a chairman from among its members, unless otherwise provided by special act, and all meetings of such board shall be held at the call of the chairman and at such other times as the board determines and shall be open to the public. Such chairman or in his absence the acting chairman may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. The board shall keep minutes of its proceedings showing the vote of each member and each alternate member when seated upon each question or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact; and shall also keep records of its examinations and other official actions. Each rule or regulation and each amendment or repeal thereof and each order, requirement or decision of the board shall immediately be filed in the office of the board and shall be a public record.
(b) The zoning board of appeals of any town shall have jurisdiction over that part of the town outside of any city or borough contained therein except that the legislative body of any city or borough may, by ordinance, designate the zoning board of appeals of the town in which such city or borough is situated as the zoning board of appeals of such city or borough.
(1949 Rev., S. 841; 1951, S. 158b; 1953, S. 376d; 1959, P.A. 146, S. 1; 1961, P.A. 271; 1963, P.A. 137; 1971, P.A. 763, S. 4; P.A. 75-629, S. 2; P.A. 89-175, S. 1, 7.)
History: 1959 act required alternate members; 1961 act added panel of alternates in provision for method of selection and determination of terms; 1963 act added “any provision of any special act to the contrary notwithstanding” to the provision governing membership of zoning board of appeals; 1971 act made no changes; P.A. 75-629 added Subsec. (b) concerning jurisdiction of zoning board of appeals; P.A. 89-175 amended Subsec. (a) to eliminate provisions re appointment of board members and alternates in cities and boroughs and to provide that board members and alternates may be elected or appointed in any municipality.
See Sec. 9-1 for applicable definitions.
See Sec. 9-209 re certification of terms of office and number of members of planning and zoning boards or commissions.
Cited. 123 C. 264. Board of appeals acts in a quasi-judicial capacity as distinguished from zoning commission. 145 C. 592. Cited. 148 C. 33; 165 C. 185; 219 C. 352.
Cited. 33 CA 281. Local zoning regulation, which mirrors statute, confers only specific narrowly defined powers on the chairman and in this case chairman was not authorized to act on behalf of board as to any substantive matter such as termination of disposition of an appeal. 69 CA 230.
Compared with number 305 of special acts of 1931. 10 CS 194.
Subsec. (a):
Unseated alternate zoning board member is precluded from participating in board deliberations following the close of a public hearing. 127 CA 669.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
72
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case:
State v. Pierre, 890 A.2d 474 (Conn. 2006).
State v. Pierre, 890 A.2d 474 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 5× “We therefore adopted a rule allowing the substantive use of prior written inconsistent statements where the declarant: (1) has signed the statement; (2) has personal knowledge of the facts stated; and (3) testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination.” (Citations…”
Komondy v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 16 A.3d 741 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 13× “but I don’t think we can postpone our decision based on that . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Plainly, Myers was an active participant in the board’s deliberations on the variance application.”
State v. Johnson, 951 A.2d 1257 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “34 All of Ford’s prior inconsistent statements were admitted at trial not only to impeach him but also for their truth pursuant to § 8-5 (1) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.”
State v. Trotter, 793 A.2d 1172 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Section 8-5 provides in relevant part: “The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, provided the declarant is available for cross-examination at trial: (1) Prior inconsistent statement. A prior inconsistent statement of a witness, provided (A) the statement is in…”
State v. Hamilton, 352 Conn. 317 (Conn. 2025).
· cites it 9× “743 ) and the corresponding provision (§ 8-5 (1)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence on the ground that C’s trial testimony was not inconsistent with the statements he had made during those interviews.”
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2d 474 (§ 8-5[1][C] of code codified common-law jurisprudence concerning rule allowing admission of prior inconsistent statements for substantive purposes under certain circumstances), cert.”
State v. Simpson, 945 A.2d 449 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 3× “” “This rule has also been codified in § 8-5 (1) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, which incorporates all of the developments and clarifications of the Whelan rule that have occurred since Whelan was decided.”
State v. Winot, 988 A.2d 188 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “) [22] This rule has been codified in § 8-5 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, which provides in relevant part: "The following [is] not excluded by the hearsay rule, provided the declarant is available for cross-examination at trial: "(1) Prior inconsistent statement. A prior…”
State v. Hutton, 205 A.3d 637 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 4× “One such exception is set forth in § 8-5 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, which incorporates and codifies a rule established in State v.”
State v. Corbin, 799 A.2d 1056 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 3× “§ 8-5 (1). 5 “In State v. Almeda, 211 Conn.”
State v. Carrion, 16 A.3d 1232 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 7× “2d 598 (1986), and § 8-5 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.”
State v. Jacques, 353 Conn. 122 (Conn. 2025).
· cites it 15× “743 ) and the corresponding provision (§ 8-5 (1)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-5(1) — 6 cases
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-5(a) — 1 case
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-5(b) — 1 case
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.