Appeals from zoning commissions and planning and zoning commissions may be taken to the Superior Court and, upon certification for review, to the Appellate Court in the manner provided in section
8-8.
(1949 Rev., S. 845; 1953, S. 381d; February, 1965, P.A. 622, S. 4; 1971, P.A. 870, S. 13; P.A. 74-183, S. 180, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 159, 681; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29, S. 19, 82.)
History: 1965 act included planning and zoning commissions; 1971 act added language allowing appeal to supreme court; P.A. 74-183 made no change; P.A. 76-436 substituted superior court for court of common pleas, effective July 1, 1978; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29 deleted reference to supreme court and substituted appellate court in lieu thereof.
Cited. 136 C. 90; 143 C. 280; 145 C. 218, 237, 416, 435; 146 C. 665; 148 C. 33. Standard used by court in reviewing action of zoning commission. 148 C. 172. Cited. 149 C. 681; 151 C. 484; 155 C. 365; 157 C. 522. Determination that keeping of chickens and goats was not an “accessory use” to residential property was within discretion of local zoning board and, where board did not act illegally or in abuse of its discretion, will not be reversed on appeal. 158 C. 509. This section and Sec. 8-8 govern appeals from final zoning authority of municipality. 159 C. 1. Amendment of Sec. 8-8 is operative as to this adopting statute and does not remain unmodified in relation to this statute. 160 C. 239, 249. Cited. 162 C. 74; 165 C. 185; 168 C. 285; 173 C. 408; 174 C. 493; 179 C. 250; 186 C. 106; 211 C. 85; 214 C. 400; 221 C. 374; 225 C. 731; 226 C. 80; Id., 230; 232 C. 122; Id., 419.
Cited. 2 CA 506; Id., 595; 3 CA 172; Id., 576; 4 CA 271; 5 CA 520; 6 CA 317; 43 CA 606.
Cited. 17 CS 116; 19 CS 29. This section and Secs. 8-3 and 8-8 are not so linked that date of publication of notice must be considered as date decision was rendered. 26 CS 88. Plaintiffs' claim that logic dictates that legislature did not intend that there should be an inconsistent procedure relative to appeal from decisions of zoning boards of appeal and zoning boards and that therefore running of appeal period in case of zoning regulation should be contingent on statutory publication is without merit. Id., 90. Equitable relief outside the framework of appeal procedure set up by statute might be granted in the presence of allegations of fraudulent connivance or collusion on the part of local zoning board of appeals; plaintiffs have been granted equitable relief when the zoning authority lacked the jurisdiction to take the action which plaintiff was challenging; equitable relief by way of an injunction will not be granted if the court finds that the legal remedy afforded by statute has not been exhausted. 26 CS 334. Cited. 38 CS 492.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
105
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case:
State v. Colon, 864 A.2d 666 (Conn. 2004).
State v. Colon, 864 A.2d 666 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “§ 8-9. The requirement of reasonable necessity “is met when, unless the hearsay statement is admitted, the facts it contains may be lost, either because the declarant is dead or otherwise unavailable, or because the assertion is of such a nature that evidence of the same value…”
Skakel v. State, 991 A.2d 414 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 6× “§ 8-9. "Reasonable necessity may be established by showing that unless the hearsay statement is admitted, the facts it contains may be lost, either because the declarant is dead or otherwise unavailable, or because the assertion is of such a nature that evidence of the same…”
Harris v. Zoning Comm'n, 788 A.2d 1239 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 4× “On February 23, 2000, the plaintiffs appealed from the zoning commission’s decision to the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 8-9. 6 The plaintiffs first alleged that, pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8, 7 they were statutorily aggrieved by the zoning commission’s…”
State v. Merriam, 835 A.2d 895 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “§ 8-9; 22 accord State v. Hines, 243 Conn.”
State v. Skakel, 888 A.2d 985 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 3× “, § 8-9. Finally, the court concluded that the third level of hearsay, namely, the defendant’s alleged statement to his father, was admissible as an admission by a party opponent.”
Castellon v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 603 A.2d 1168 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 8× “*380 Finally, in Conto we concluded that neither General Statutes § 8-9 7 nor General Statutes § 8-10, 8 nor the two sections taken together, permit an aggrieved party direct access to the court when the local regulations provide for an intermediate appellate step between the…”
Conto v. Zoning Comm'n of Washington, 439 A.2d 441 (Conn. 1982).
· cites it 6× “Third, she claims that General Statutes §§8-9 and 8-10 together give the court immediate jurisdiction to hear her appeal.”
State v. Myers, 174 A.3d 197 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 4× “2 Section 8-9 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides: ‘‘A statement that is not admissible under any of the foregoing exceptions is admissible if the court determines that (1) there is a reasonable necessity for the admission of the statement, and (2) the statement is…”
Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth. v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 626 A.2d 705 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 4× “*737 On January 29,1989, the plaintiffs appealed the commission’s decision to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 8-9. 8 The court held a preliminary hearing on the issue of standing to determine whether CRRA and Meriden had been aggrieved by the commission’s…”
State v. Saucier, 926 A.2d 633 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 2× “" [6] With respect to the defendant's other arguments in support of the statement's admissibility; see footnote 5 of this opinion; the trial court concluded that the statement also was inadmissible: (1) as a prior inconsistent statement; see Conn.”
In Re Tayler F., 958 A.2d 170 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 6× “§ 8-9. A statement is reasonably necessary if "unless the hearsay statement is admitted, the facts it contains may be lost, either because the declarant is dead or otherwise unavailable, or because the assertion is of such a nature that evidence of the same value cannot be…”
Heim v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of New Canaan, 960 A.2d 1018 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes §§ 8-9 and 8-8( o ). Following the Appellate Court's grant of certification, we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199(c) and Practice Book § 65-1.”
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.