Legal Opinion

Mandanici v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided September 8, 1998No. AC 17469; AC 17475PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*309 Opinion

DALY, J.

The defendants1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiffs appeal and reversing the decision of the defendant Shelton zoning board of appeals (board) that the plaintiff was not entitled to a variance because he did not suffer a hardship.

The defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) ordered the board to grant a variance subject to conditions, when the plaintiff had purchased the property knowing gasoline stations were not a permitted use in that zone, (2) reversed the decision of the board by substituting its judgment for that of the board,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Devaney v. Board of Zoning AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
  2. Smith v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
  3. Kelly v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
  4. Eagan v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
  5. Kulak v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kalimian v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  2. Sydoriak v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
  3. Mandanici v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  4. Fox v. Wolcott Zba, No. Cv 0149526 (Feb. 6, 2003)Connecticut Superior Court · 2003
  5. Linville v. Norwalk Zoning Brd. of App., No. Cv98 0168517 S (Aug. 1, 2000)Connecticut Superior Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API