Leo Fedus & Sons Construction Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

In Leo Fedus & Sons Construction Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 27 Conn. App. 412, 606 A.2d 725 (1992), rev'd on other grounds, 225 Conn. 432, 623 A.2d 1007 (1993) the commission had interpreted the town's regulations to allow an asphalt plant as a permitted use. Id., 413. The commission subsequently denied the plaintiff's application for site plan approval for an asphalt plant. Id. The plaintiff appealed to the zoning board of appeals. Id. Thereafter, the commission reinterpreted the regulations, concluding that asphalt plants were no longer allowed under the regulations. Id., 414. The board then dismissed the appeal because the commission's reinterpretation had deprived it of jurisdiction. Id. The plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board to sustain the appeal and to issue a certificate approving its application. Id. The trial court granted the relief requested. Id., 415. On appeal, we addressed the issue of whether the board had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's appeal from the commission's denial of site plan approval. In holding that it did, we noted first there, as we have here, that the answer to the question lies in the "particular regulations at issue." Id., 416. The regulations in Leo Fedus & Sons Construction Co. provided that "any person may appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals when it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, or decision made by the Commission or Zoning Enforcement Officer related to the enforcement of these regulations." Leo Fedus & Sons Construction Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 27 Conn. App. 416.