Legal Opinion
Pinchbeck v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 21, 2002No. AC 21015PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MIHALAKOS, J.
The plaintiff, Kristine Pinchbeck,1 appeals from the trial court’s judgment affirming the action of the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of Guilford (commission) and dismissing her appeal. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the commission properly decided that the sec*798ond coastal area management (CAM II) site plan application that was submitted by the defendants Gary Friedlaender and Linda Friedlaender merely was a revision of their earlier application (CAM I), and, therefore, not subject to de novo review. We conclude that the commission should…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- DeBeradinis v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Gagnon v. Planning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Gangemi v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Pelliccione v. Planning & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Pinchbeck v. Department of Public HealthConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Jalowiec Realty Associates, L.P. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Carr v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- United Technologies Corp./Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Hescock v. ZON. BD. OF APP. OF TOWN OF STONINGTONConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Jersey v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS OF DERBYConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.