Case Name: I. R. Stich Associates, Inc. v. Town Council of the Town of West Hartford
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1967-04-07
Citations: 155 Conn. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: I. R. Stich Associates, Inc. v. Town Council of the Town of West Hartford
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 1–6

Head Matter:
I. R. Stich Associates, Inc. v. Town Council of the Town of West Hartford
King, C. J., Alcorn, House, Cotter and Ryan, Js.
Argued January 6
decided April 7, 1967
Thomas P. Byrne, corporation counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Louise H. Hunt, with whom, on the brief, was David Kotlcin, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion:
Ryan, J.
Prom the action of the defendant town council in denying the plaintiff's application for approval of a subdivision plan, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The trial court rendered judgment sustaining the appeal, and the town council has appealed to this court.
In the town of West Hartford, planning and zoning are governed by special act of the General Assembly. The only issue which requires discussion is the question of the aggrievement of the plaintiff. West Hartford Charter, c. 13 § 11. In its appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff alleged that the town council denied its application for approval of a subdivision and that the plaintiff was aggrieved thereby. The town council, in its answer, denied the aggrievement. The council, in its appeal, assigns error in the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiff was aggrieved by the action of the town council.
There was nothing in the plaintiff's complaint to indicate what, if any, interest it had in the property for which the subdivision was requested. It should have alleged the respects in which it claimed to have been aggrieved by the decision from which the appeal was taken. Hickey v. New London, 153 Conn. 35, 37, 213 A.2d 308. To be entitled to an appeal from a decision of the planning or zoning authorities, appellants must allege and prove that they were aggrieved parties. "They are required to establish that they were aggrieved by showing that they had a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision as distinguished from a general interest such as is the concern of all members of the community and that they were specially and injuriously affected in their property or other legal rights. Tucker v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 510, 514, 199 A.2d 685; Tyler v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 145 Conn. 655, 662, 145 A.2d 832." Krejpcio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 657, 660, 211 A.2d 687. The court decided the case upon the record of the proceedings before the town council. It heard no evidence on the question of aggrievement, and neither party has filed an appendix to its brief in this court. It is not necessary for one who claims to have been aggrieved by the action of a planning or zoning authority to establish his aggrievement before the board conducting the hearing. A person does not become^" aggrieved until the board has acted. Upon appeal, he must establish his aggrievement, and the court must decide whether he has sustained the burden of proving that fact. Fox v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 665, 666, 667, 154 A.2d 520. It was a question of fact for the court to determine. Luery v. Zoning Board, 150 Conn. 136, 140, 187 A.2d 247.
There is nothing in the record upon which a finding that the plaintiff was aggrieved can be predicated, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain an appeal from the action of the town council.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the appeal.
In this opinion Káng, C. J., Alcobu and House, Js., concurred.