{"content":[{"text":"and the board was unwilling to substitute its judgement [sic] for that of the Commission in a \n matter where reasonable men might differ.” (R.O.R., Exhibit 31).","bbox":{"left":0.147059,"top":0.088894,"width":0.7062550000000001,"height":0.037636}},{"text":"The plaintiff instituted the instant appeal on December 21, 1990. The complaint alleged:","bbox":{"left":0.147059,"top":0.138894,"width":0.657367,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"The denial of the Plaintiffs' appeal was illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of discretion and \n in violation of the Boards authority and duties in that:","bbox":{"left":0.205882,"top":0.17147,"width":0.647505,"height":0.037636}},{"text":"(a)","bbox":{"left":0.205882,"top":0.22147,"width":0.02094499999999999,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"The Defendant Board failed to state upon its records the reasons for its denial of \n Plaintiff's application.","bbox":{"left":0.252941,"top":0.22147,"width":0.600474,"height":0.037636}},{"text":"(b)","bbox":{"left":0.205882,"top":0.27147,"width":0.022118,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"The Defendant Board was required to reverse the action of the Planning and \n Zoning Commission denying a Zoning permit to Plaintiff because the Planning \n and Zoning Commission had no power to decide that non-commercial amateur \n radio transmitting and receiving antennas are not an accessory use to a one \n family residence under the New Canaan Zoning Regulations.","bbox":{"left":0.252941,"top":0.27147,"width":0.600506,"height":0.08990800000000004}},{"text":"(c)","bbox":{"left":0.205882,"top":0.373742,"width":0.02094499999999999,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"The Defendant Board acted in contravention of federal law [*4] which prohibits \n local authorities from precluding amateur radio communications and which \n requires such officials to use the minimum practical regulation of such antennas.","bbox":{"left":0.252941,"top":0.373742,"width":0.6004229999999999,"height":0.05506099999999997}},{"text":"(d)","bbox":{"left":0.205882,"top":0.441166,"width":0.022118,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"The Defendant Board was required to reverse the action of the Planning and \n Zoning Commission denying a Zoning permit to Plaintiff because the Planning \n and Zoning Commission acted improperly and erroneously.","bbox":{"left":0.252941,"top":0.441166,"width":0.6004509999999998,"height":0.05506100000000003}},{"text":"(Plaintiff's Complaint, Para. 9; Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Para. 9).","bbox":{"left":0.147059,"top":0.508591,"width":0.5348470000000001,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"On September 18, 1992, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging three additional \n grounds for appeal. (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Para. 9(d), (e) and (f)). On September 23, \n 1992, the defendant filed a motion to strike the three additional grounds, which was granted by \n the court, Lewis, J., on November 30, 1992. Thus, the only remaining grounds for appeal are \n those alleged in the original complaint.","bbox":{"left":0.147059,"top":0.541166,"width":0.7065570000000001,"height":0.08990900000000002}},{"text":"Jurisdiction","bbox":{"left":0.147059,"top":0.645833,"width":0.122857,"height":0.020818000000000003}},{"text":"It is well established that “a statutory right of appeal from a decision of an administrative \n agency may be taken advantage of only by strict compliance with the statutory provisions by \n which it is created.” Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 206 Conn. 374, 377, 538 A.2d 202 \n (1988) (Simko [*5] II), quoting Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 413, 419, 533 \n A.2d 879 (1987) (Simko I). “[Such] provisions are mandatory and jurisdictional in nature, \n and, if not complied with, the appeal is subject to dismissal.” Id. General Statutes § 8-8 \n provides, in pertinent part, that “any person aggrieved by any decision of a board may take an \n appeal to the superior court…” General Statutes § 8-8(b). \n Aggrievement \n Aggrievement is a jurisdictional question and a prerequisite to maintaining an appeal. \n Winchester Woods Associates v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 219 Conn. 303, 307, 592","bbox":{"left":0.147059,"top":0.679954,"width":0.706521,"height":0.21347000000000005}},{"text":"2","bbox":{"left":0.496078,"top":0.934299,"width":0.008175999999999961,"height":0.015614000000000017}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}