DocketNumber: No. CV91 28 04 13
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6900, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 1009
Judges: McKEEVER, J.
Filed Date: 7/21/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Neither plaintiff owns land that abuts or is within a radius of one hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of the board and are not, nor do they claim to be, statutorily aggrieved.
"Pleading and proof that the plaintiffs are aggrieved within the Meaning of the statute is a prerequisite to the trial courts jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal." Munhall v. Inland Wetlands Commission,
Aggrievement is a question of fact, and the plaintiff has the burden of proving that fact. Olsen v. Inland Wetlands Commission,
Lacking statutory aggrievement the plaintiffs must prove that their aggrievement arises from being "affected directly or in relation to a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision as distinguished from a general interest such as in the concern of all members of the community and the appellant[s] must be specially and injuriously affected as to property or other legal rights." Smith v. Planning Zoning Board,
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have been specially and injuriously affected as to such rights.
Mere generalizations and fears do not establish aggrievement. Tucker v. Zoning Board of Appeals,
The appeal is dismissed.
McKEEVER, JUDGE CT Page 6901