Legal Opinion

Kaeser v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided April 30, 1991No. 14186PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCovello, J.

This is an administrative appeal from the granting of a zoning variance. The issues presented are: (1) Within the context of the Stratford zoning regulations (a) does the word “livestock” mean more than one animal or can it mean a single animal as well; (b) can a horse reasonably be considered a “household pet”; and (2) can the intention to stable a “pleasure horse” serve as the basis for the hardship required in order to grant a zoning variance. We conclude that within the context of these regulations, “livestock” as a collective noun can mean a single animal as well as more than one animal…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Whittaker v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  2. Malone v. SteinbergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
  3. Favorite v. MillerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
  4. Aaron v. Conservation CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  5. Pinsky v. Statewide Grievance CommitteeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Thomason v. Chemical BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  2. Reid v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  3. Jaser v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  4. Hyllen-Davey v. Plan & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
  5. Kalimian v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001

24 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