Moutinho v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Bridgeport, 278 Conn. 660

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a nonowner developer with an oral agreement to lease property upon approval of a proposed project could be classically aggrieved by the denial of zoning applications. The court also held that the property-owning partnership was statutorily aggrieved under General Statutes § 8-8 and could appeal despite not having been the applicant before the commission. The judgment dismissing the zoning appeal was reversed and the case was remanded.

Holdings

1. A nonowner developer is classically aggrieved when credible evidence establishes an oral agreement with the landowner and the parties' intent to abide by that agreement, because those circumstances establish a specific, personal, and legitimate interest in the property.
2. The statute of frauds did not apply because the proceeding was not a contract dispute between Moutinho and J.R.R.C.; the oral agreement could therefore establish Moutinho's aggrievement even though it was not enforceable as a contract.
3. A person who is statutorily aggrieved under General Statutes § 8-8 may appeal a zoning decision even if that person was not an applicant before the commission.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Moutinho was classically aggrieved by the commission's denial of the zoning applications despite having only an oral agreement to enter into a lease upon satisfaction of a contingency.
2. Whether the statute of frauds prevented Moutinho from establishing aggrievement based on the oral lease agreement.
3. Whether J.R.R.C. Associates, as the owner of the affected property and a statutorily aggrieved person, could appeal the commission's decision even though it had not been listed as an applicant before the commission.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded