Having found that the plaintiffs are aggrieved, there is little left for the court to review because the parties have conceded that the Monroe Zoning Board of Appeals failed to provide proper notice of its public hearings on the plaintiffs' appeal. The parties agree that the second notice required by statute was untimely. In light of this information, the court is compelled to sustain the plaintiffs' appeal on the limited ground that the Monroe Zoning Board of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to affirm the decision of the zoning enforcement officer because it failed to provide proper notice. See e.g. Koskoff v. Planning Zoning Commission,
Therefore, the court sustains the plaintiffs' appeal on the ground that the Monroe Zoning Board of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction to render a decision on the plaintiffs' CT Page 8698 appeal to that board.
SO ORDERED:
John P. Maiocco, J. JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
