R & R Pool & Patio, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BEAR, J.
The defendant, the zoning board of appeals of the town of Ridgefield (board), appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining in part the appeal of the plaintiffs, R & R Pool & Patio, Inc., Mitchell Ross, David Ross and Philip Ross. On appeal, the board claims that the court improperly rejected its definition of the term “fine furniture,” as that term was set forth in a variance pertaining to the plaintiffs’ property, and improperly substituted its own definition. We conclude that the court properly determined that the board’s definition of that term was arbitrary…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Spero v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Reid v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Simko v. ErvinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Crews v. CrewsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- R & R Pool & Patio, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Com. v. Lewis, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
- Sargent v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2025