Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Anatra v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS OF MADISON

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided March 8, 2011No. AC 31499Published

1ConcurrenceGruendel, J.

I concur with the well reasoned majority opinion. When a zoning board of appeals elects to enumerate specific conditions in granting a variance, those conditions must be set forth with clarity. I write separately to address the line of precedent relied on by the defendant in this appeal, the zoning board of appeals of the town of Madison, and the trial *140court in the proceeding below, regarding the import of the variance application in ascertaining the scope of a granted variance.

The precedent of our appellate courts instructs that, at times, a review of the variance application is of use in…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Couch v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  2. Florentine v. Town of DarienSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
  3. Reid v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  4. Wesley v. Schaller Subaru, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  5. Pleasant View Farms Development, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API