Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
North Branford Citizesn Against Bulk Propane Storage v. Town of North Branford
Date: 01-28-2025
Case Number: AC46854
Judge: Kamp
Court: superior Court, New Haven County, Connecitcut
Plaintiff's Attorney: <center><h2><br> <a href="https://www.morelaw.com/connecticut/lawyers/newhaven/zoning.asp" target="_new"><h2>Click Here For The Best New Haven Zoing Lawyer Directory</h2></a></font><br> </h2></center><br>
Defendant's Attorney: Click Here For The Best New Haven Zoing Lawyer Directory
The plaintiff, North Branford Citizens Against Bulk Propane Storage, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its declaratory judgment action against the defendants, the Town of North Branford (town), North Branford Planning and Zoning Commission (commission), Donald Fucci, and 2772 BPR, LLC (company). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in dismissing the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. We affirm the judgment of the trial court on the alternative ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to maintain the action.
* * *
Legal issue Does an association have standing to challenge zoning regulations without showing that its members would suffer a unique harm distinct from the general public?
About This Case
What was the outcome of North Branford Citizesn Against Bulk Propane Storage v. T...?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard North Branford Citizesn Against Bulk Propane Storage v. T...?
This case was heard in superior Court, New Haven County, Connecitcut, CT. The presiding judge was Kamp.
Who were the attorneys in North Branford Citizesn Against Bulk Propane Storage v. T...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best New Haven Zoing Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best New Haven Zoing Lawyer Directory.
When was North Branford Citizesn Against Bulk Propane Storage v. T... decided?
This case was decided on January 28, 2025.