The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Land Use Law

Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4630

AC42866 - 2772 BPR, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Zoning appeal; denial of site development plan application; "The plaintiff, 2772 BPR, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of North Branford (commission), in which the commission denied the plaintiff's site development plan application to build a facility to be used for the bulk storage of propane. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by (1) upholding the commission's consideration of off-site traffic concerns, the preparedness of municipal services, and the potential impact on property values when conducting an administrative review of its site development plan application, and (2) raising independently a reason to deny the appeal that was not one of the bases for the commission's decision to deny the application. We agree with the plaintiff's first claim, and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to render judgment sustaining the plaintiff's appeal and directing the commission to approve the plaintiff's site development plan application.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4523

AC43273 - Boyajian v. Planning & Zoning Commission (“This appeal requires us to consider whether the plaintiffs, who failed to appeal from a decision of the local zoning board of appeals to grant a variance; see General Statutes § 8-8 (b); may nevertheless collaterally attack the validity of that variance by opposing, before the local planning and zoning commission, a special permit application related to the property to which the variance attached. We conclude that the plaintiffs may not collaterally attack the validity of the variance.”)


Land Use Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4469

SC20374 - Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("The primary issues that are before us in this appeal are (1) whether a zoning administrator has the authority to take conclusive action on an application for a special permit, and (2) whether an applicant whose special permit application is rejected as void by a zoning administrator on the ground that it was incomplete must exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing that action to a zoning board of appeals....

We conclude that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the city's zoning administrator had the authority to void the plaintiff's application for a special permit. We further conclude that the plaintiff could not have appealed to the board from the action of the zoning administrator because it was not a legal decision for purposes of General Statutes § 8-6, which governs such appeals. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4464

AC43853 - Berka v. Middletown (Zoning; municipal blight citation; anti-blight ordinance; whether trial court properly granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's request for jury trial, etc.; "The plaintiff . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition to reopen a municipal blight citation assessment and upholding a failure to pay fines notice issued by the defendant city of Middletown (city), with respect to six blight violations that existed on the plaintiff's rental property located at 5 Maple Place in Middletown (property). Specifically, the plaintiff claims that (1) he should have been granted a jury trial, (2) he should have been allowed to raise constitutional issues related to the blight ordinance at his appeal hearing, (3) the blight citation violated his constitutional rights, (4) boarded windows should not constitute blight, (5) it was neither fair nor reasonable to expect him to pour concrete and to paint in the winter, (6) the blight enforcement officer was not qualified to make structural assessments about the property, (7) the siding on his home was not 'seriously damaged,' (8) the outside structural walls of his home were watertight, (9) there was no garbage, rubbish, or refuse being stored or accumulated in public view, and (10) the hearing officer . . . had a conflict of interest. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4396

AC42885, AC42886 - Peterson v. iCare Management, LLC ("These two appeals arise from consolidated cases. The defendants in both actions, iCare Management, LLC, SecureCare Realty, LLC, and SecureCare Options, LLC (defendants), appeal from the judgments of the trial court denying their motions for summary judgment, in which they argued that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in denying their motions because the plaintiffs' claims were previously litigated in an earlier action. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4343

AC42973 - South Windsor v. Lanata (Zoning; "The defendant . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, the town of South Windsor (town) and its zoning enforcement officer . . . . On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that a February 24, 2017 cease and desist order was unconstitutionally vague as to the conduct to which it applied, (2) that the court erred in failing to conclude that she was justified in not complying with the February 24, 2017 cease and desist order on the basis that she had been instructed by both the police and her insurer not to touch or remove any of the personal property located in the backyard of her property, and (3) that the court misapplied General Statutes § 8-12 in assessing a fine for wilful violation of the town's zoning regulations. We conclude that the court abused its discretion in imposing a fine for a zoning violation that covered a time period during which she was under orders not to disturb the property. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court as to count two of the plaintiffs' complaint, which alleges the zoning violation, and remand for a new trial on that count. . . .the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4322

AC43052 - MSW Associates, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Dept. ("This zoning appeal concerns the conflict that sometimes arises between the state's authority to regulate solid waste management and a municipality's right to regulate the structures and land use within its borders. The plaintiff, MSW Associates, LLC, filed a site plan application (site plan) to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station and volume reduction plant in Danbury (city) that was denied by the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Department of the City of Danbury. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8. The Superior Court sustained the plaintiff's appeal. Thereafter, this court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal.

On appeal before us, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by (1) construing General Statutes § 22a-208b (b) to require it to approve the site plan even though the use is prohibited in the IG-80 zone in which it was proposed and when the city's zoning regulations (regulations) permit other types of solid waste facilities at other locations in the city, (2) ruling that the regulations 'have the effect of prohibiting the construction, alteration or operation of solid waste facilities within the limits' of the city and thus violate § 22a-208b (b), (3) refusing to invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to remand the case to the city's zoning commission, and (4) disregarding the language of § 22a-208b (b) that '[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the right of a municipality to regulate, through zoning, land usage for an existing or new solid waste facility,' and by ordering it to approve the site plan in a particular location and zone, thereby usurping the legislative authority of the zoning commission. The defendant also claims that the plaintiff lacks standing to claim a violation of § 22a-208b (b) on the basis of allegations that the regulations fail to allow solid waste facilities other than the specific subtype of facility that it seeks to construct on its property. We agree with the court that the plain language of § 22a-208b (b) bars zoning regulations from having the effect, as the city's do, of prohibiting construction of solid waste facilities of any type within its borders. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4313

AC43035 - International Investors v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission (Zoning; whether trial court improperly concluded that special permit granted to developer remained valid on basis that it could not be temporally limited; "This appeal requires us to consider whether a zoning authority may condition its approval of a special permit on the completion of development attendant to the permitted use by a date certain, in effect imposing a conditional time limit on the special permit. The plaintiff, International Investors, appeals from the judgment of the trial court disposing of the plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the defendant Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield (commission) extending its approvals of a special permit and coastal site plan review granted to the defendant Fairfield Commons, LLC (Fairfield Commons). After sustaining the plaintiff's appeal insofar as it challenged the commission's decision to extend the special permit approval, the court ruled that it nonetheless was not finding that the special permit had expired because, it reasoned, the special permit, once recorded in the town land records, was valid indefinitely and not subject to a condition limiting its duration. On appeal before us, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the special permit remained valid on the basis that it could not be temporally limited. We reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4291

SC20393 - One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the suitability analysis mandated by General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 14-55 is still required in order to obtain a certificate of approval of the location for a used car dealership, notwithstanding the fact that subsequent revisions of the General Statutes list that provision as having been repealed. The plaintiff, One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC, filed an administrative appeal challenging the decision of the defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Stamford to grant a certificate of approval of the location for a used car dealership run by the defendants Pasquale Pisano and Pisano Brothers Automotive, Inc. After the trial court rendered judgment denying the administrative appeal, the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's judgment. See One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 192 Conn. App. 275, 277–78, 217 A.3d 1015 (2019). The defendants, following our grant of certification, now appeal to this court. On appeal, the defendants claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that § 14-55 continues to carry the force of law. In response, the plaintiff contends that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that § 14-55 was not repealed by a sequence of contradictory public acts relating to that statute that were passed by the legislature in 2003. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that § 14-55 has been repealed and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4148

AC42561 - McLoughlin v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Appeal from decision of defendant planning and zoning commission denying plaintiffs' application for special permit to construct crematory in industrial zone; "The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Bethel (commission). In that decision, the commission denied the plaintiffs' application for a special permit (application) to construct a crematory in an industrial park zoning district (industrial zone). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly dismissed their appeal because (1) the commission's denial was not supported by substantial evidence in the record and (2) the commission failed to consider their application on its merits. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4075

AC42235 - 500 North Avenue, LLC v. Planning Commission (Zoning appeal; "The plaintiff, 500 North Avenue, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Planning Commission of the Town of Stratford (commission), concluding that the plaintiff was required to file an application for subdivision approval in order to adjust the lot lines of two abutting properties that it owns by adding ten acres to one property and subtracting that acreage from the other. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) its proposed boundary line revision of two adjacent lots constituted a subdivision under General Statutes § 8-18 and (2) a subdivision application was required because the proposed revision was more than a "`minor'" adjustment. In response, the defendants argue that because the proposed boundary line revision would create a third part, it required subdivision approval. We agree with the plaintiff and, thus, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4009

AC41680 - Procurement, LLC v. Ahuja (Vexatious litigation; zoning appeals; "The plaintiff, Procurement, LLC, brings this action sounding in vexatious litigation, abuse of process, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42a-110g et seq., aiding and abetting, and tortious interference with contractual and business relations, and seeking damages from the defendants Gurpreet Ahuja and Ahuja Holdings, LLC (Holdings), on the ground that they generally sought to impede the plaintiff's development of a mixed use development project. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after the granting of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Ahuja's zoning appeals with regard to the plaintiff's proposed development plan were not objectively baseless and, therefore, the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine was not applicable, and (2) the court misinterpreted the sham exception under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3999

SC20237, SC20238, SC20239 - Lime Rock Park, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Zoning; Whether General Statutes § 14-164a Preempts Zoning Regulation of Days and Hours of Motor Vehicle Racing; "These appeals arise from the adoption by the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission (commission) of the Town of Salisbury (town), of certain amendments to the town's zoning regulations restricting motor vehicle racing activities on property owned by the plaintiff, Lime Rock Park, LLC. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the adoption of the amendments. Thereafter, the intervening defendant, Lime Rock Citizens Council, LLC (council), filed a motion to intervene in the appeal, which the trial court granted. After a trial to the court, the court sustained the plaintiff's appeal in part and dismissed it in part. All three parties appealed from the decision, raising numerous claims. We conclude that the trial court incorrectly (1) sustained the portion of the plaintiff's appeal claiming that the provision of the amended regulations prohibiting racing activities on Sundays was preempted by General Statutes § 14-164a (a), (2) denied the portion of the appeal claiming that the commission lacked the authority to condition the filing of a petition to amend the regulations on obtaining a special permit, and (3) concluded that the amended regulations prohibited racing activities on Saturdays. We further conclude that the trial court correctly (1) determined that the plaintiff did not waive its right to challenge the regulation prohibiting Sunday racing, and (2) denied the portion of the plaintiff's appeal claiming that the amendments' restrictions on unmufflered racing are subject to the provision of General Statutes § 22a-73 (c), requiring the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to approve municipal noise control ordinances. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's judgment.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3875

AC41824 - Turek v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Zoning; "The defendant, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Milford (board), appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal filed by the plaintiffs . . . and reversing the decision of the board that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a variance. On appeal, the board claims that the trial court erroneously sustained the appeal, and causes us to consider (1) whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a legally cognizable hardship, and (2) whether the plaintiffs' proposal qualifies under the exception to the hardship requirement set forth in Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 703, 710, 535 A.2d 799 (1988), and its progeny. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3857

AC41902, AC42138, AC42139, AC42206 - Berka v. Middletown (Zoning; "These four appeals pertain to certain real property in Middletown owned by the self-represented plaintiff, George Berka, and rented by him to multiple individuals. Although neither the cases nor the appeals have been officially consolidated, we write one opinion for the purpose of judicial economy and assess the claims made in each appeal.

The plaintiff appeals from four judgments of the Superior Court granting the motions of the defendant the city of Middletown to dismiss the complaints in four cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In two of his appeals to this court—Docket Nos. AC 41902 and AC 42206—the plaintiff's claims relate either to a citation issued to him in 2016 for conditions on his property alleged to have violated the Middletown blight ordinance, which citation subsequently was unilaterally withdrawn by the defendant, or to a subsequent citation issued to him in 2018 concerning essentially the same alleged violations. In his appeal in Docket No. AC 42138, the plaintiff challenges the denial of his application for a special exception to operate a sober house. The appeal in Docket No. AC 42139 concerns the propriety of the court's dismissal of the plaintiff's petition to have the blight ordinance invalidated on constitutional and other grounds. We affirm the judgments of the court with respect to the plaintiff's claims asserted in Docket Nos. AC 41902 and AC 42206. We dismiss Docket No. AC 42138 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the court's judgment in Docket No. AC 42139 with respect to its dismissal of the plaintiff's petition insofar as it (1) asks the court to amend the Middletown blight ordinance, and (2) is predicated on nonconstitutional grounds but we reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to its dismissal of the plaintiff's constitutional claims asserted in an individual capacity.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3756

AC41924 - Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd. v. Greenwood Manor, LLC ("In this action to foreclose certain municipal property tax liens on a 9.9 acre parcel of property in Bridgeport (property), the substitute defendant and cross claim plaintiff, Main Street Business Management, Inc. (Main Street), appeals from the trial court's judgment rendered against it on its cross claim alleging that the cross claim defendant, Manuel Moutinho, tortiously interfered with a business expectancy and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110 et seq. (CUTPA), and on its counterclaim alleging that the city engaged in tortious interference with a business expectancy and improperly sought to affect the property's value adversely by interfering with a proposed zone change.

On appeal, Main Street, as Greenwood's successor in interest, claims that the court improperly determined that (1) Moutinho did not tortiously interfere with a proposed sale of the property by Greenwood to the city, (2) the city did not tortiously interfere with the business relationship between Greenwood and Moutinho, and (3) the city did not tortiously interfere by causing the city's planning and zoning commission (commission) to reject a zoning reclassification that would have benefited Greenwood by increasing the property's marketability. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3734

SC19972 - Mayer-Wittmann v. Zoning Board of Appeals ("The issue that we must decide in this appeal is whether the named defendant, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Stamford (zoning board), properly granted the application of the defendant Paul E. Breunich for variances to reconstruct a legally nonconforming accessory structure on his property after it was severely damaged by a hurricane. Breunich sought variances from various setback requirements and height restrictions of the Stamford zoning regulations on the ground that, as applied to his property, their strict enforcement would impose an unusual hardship because he could not comply both with those regulations and with the regulations applicable to flood prone areas, which required him to elevate the structure. The Planning Board of the City of Stamford (planning board) unanimously recommended approval of the application, and, after a hearing, the zoning board unanimously approved it. The plaintiff, Karl Mayer-Wittmann, executor of the estate of Gerda Mayer-Wittmann, who owns property adjacent to Breunich's property, appealed from the decision of the zoning board to the trial court, which, after a trial, dismissed the appeal. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3729

AC41275 - Wozniak v. Colchester (Writ of mandamus; "This case concerns the obligation of a municipality to file an application on behalf of a property owner to correct flood maps promulgated by federal administrative authorities. The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, the town of Colchester. The dispositive issue is whether the trial court properly determined that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a writ of mandamus. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. . .

The plaintiffs have presented no basis on which this court reasonably could conclude that an individual property owner is prohibited, as a matter of federal administrative law, from filing a LOMR application with FEMA. The relevant federal regulations and the materials submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment all contemplate such filings by property owners, and the case law reflects that property owners routinely apply for and secure LOMRs from FEMA. The availability of that legal remedy, which would provide the plaintiffs the very relief they seek, is fatal to their mandamus action. See Sterner v. Saugatuck Harbor Yacht Club, Inc., 188 Conn. 531, 534, 450 A.2d 369 (1982) ("for mandamus to lie, the plaintiff must have no other adequate remedy"); 55 C.J.S., Mandamus § 7 (2009) ("mandamus is used sparingly . . . and only when it is the sole available remedy"). We therefore conclude that the trial court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant in the present case. The judgment is affirmed.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3681

AC41220 - Autumn View, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("The defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of East Haven, appeals from the decision of the Superior Court, sustaining the appeal of the plaintiffs, Autumn View, LLC (Autumn View), Statewide Construction Corporation, and Vicki Imperato. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the September 27, 2016 affordable housing application filed by the plaintiffs pursuant to § 8-30g was not a new application, (2) the September 27, 2016 application complied with a remand order issued by the Superior Court, (3) evidence regarding the failure to comply with town regulations did not support the defendant's denial of the application, and (4) evidence of how the storm water drainage aspects of the application posed significant dangers to human health and safety did not support the defendant's denial of the application. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

AC41696 - Putnam Park Apartments, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("The plaintiffs, Putnam Park Apartments, Inc. (Putnam Park), and Putnam Hill Apartments, Inc. (Putnam Hill), appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the decision of the defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Greenwich (commission), which had approved the special permit and site plan applications of the defendant Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. (Neighbor), to construct a new building on property, owned by the defendant Parish of Christ Church (Church) and leased to Neighbor, abutting the plaintiffs' properties. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) agreed with the commission's interpretation of § 6-94 (b) (1) of the Greenwich building zone regulations (regulations), (2) concluded that the commission properly found that the record contained substantial evidence that Neighbor's proposal was consistent with §§ 6-15 and 6-17 of the regulations, and (3) concluded that § 6-95 of the regulations did not apply to Neighbor's special permit application. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3646

AC41208 - One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals ("The plaintiff, One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court denying its appeal from the decision of the defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Stamford (board), approving the application of the defendant Pasquale Pisano (defendant) to locate the defendant used car business, Pisano Brothers Automotive, Inc. (Pisano Brothers), at 86 Elmcroft Road in Stamford. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the defendant had standing to apply to the board for approval of the application, (2) upheld the board's decision, despite the board's failure to review the application in accordance with General Statutes § 14-55, and (3) searched beyond the board's stated reason for approval of the application. We disagree with the plaintiff's first claim but agree with the plaintiff's second and third claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.")


1 2 3