Case Name: Beatrice A. Little et al. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Manchester et al.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1971-04-13
Citations: 161 Conn. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: Beatrice A. Little et al. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Manchester et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 161
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
Beatrice A. Little et al. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Manchester et al.
House, Thim, Ryan, Shapiro and Loiselle, Js.
Argued April 8
decided April 13, 1971
Edwin A. Lassman, with whom was A. Ned Bogin, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Philip Bayer, with whom were Herbert A. Phelon, Jr., and, on the brief, Dominic J. Squat'rito, for the appellees (defendant Seelert et al.).
John F. Shea, Jr., for the appellee (named defendant).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Where a zoning authority states the reasons for its action as required by § 8-3 of the General Statutes, the question on appeal is simply whether those reasons are reasonably supported by the record and are pertinent to the considerations which the zoning authority is required to apply under the zoning regulations. Zieky v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 265, 267, 196 A.2d 758.
We find no error in the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim that the defendant commission acted arbitrarily or illegally and thus abused the discretion vested in it. Stiles v. Town Council, 159 Conn. 212, 219, 268 A.2d 395.
There is no error.