Nothing in the language of section explicitly indicates that filing the record with the court was intended to be the only requirement placed on zoning authorities regarding service or that, having authorized appeals to the Superior Court, the legislature intended that the court's normal procedural rules as to service were not to be operative. 50 CS 453.
Subsec. (k):
Cited. 218 C. 438; 233 C. 198.
Cited. 25 CA 137; 40 CA 840; 43 CA 105; Id., 512. Statute does not say that trial court is required to hold evidentiary hearing. 78 CA 561. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing additional evidence to be presented in zoning appeal where plaintiff was specific in spelling out the nature of his claim and who was a pro se individual objecting to a petition before the commission. 110 CA 349.
Subsec. (l):
Court reiterated previous holdings that based on evidence presented at trial, the judgment of a planning and zoning commission denying site plan application can be affirmed, reversed, modified or revised where there is no evidence or basis to support commission's decision re qualification as permitted basic neighborhood store and re evaluation of provision of parking that met zoning regulations. 287 C. 746.
Subsec. (m):
Hearing held pursuant to Subsec. serves to protect the public interest by guarding against any attempt by settling parties to evade judicial review and scrutiny by potentially aggrieved landowners. 259 C. 607.
Subsec. (n):
Purpose of hearing is to protect public interest and neither a pretrial conference nor a court hearing to enforce a settlement met the statutory requirement. 247 C. 732.