Legal Opinion

Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided February 28, 1978PublishedCited by 66 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLongo, J.

This appeal presents a question of first impression-whether a condemning authority proposing a partial taking must show hardship to the property owner in order to obtain a zoning variance under General Statutes § 48-24. In April, 1972, pursuant to the provisions of what is now § 48-24, the defendant commissioner of the department of transportation, hereinafter the state, applied to the defendant zoning board of appeals of the town of Norwalk for a variance of the minimum lot area restriction on a house lot owned by the plaintiffs, Warren R. Smith and Sara F. Smith. The variance was requested…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. A.P. & W. Holding Corp. v. Planning & Zoning BoardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
  2. DeMaria v. Enfield Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
  3. Garibaldi v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  4. Parsons v. Board of Zoning AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
  5. Goldberg v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977

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

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. Adolphson v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Bloom v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  3. Whittaker v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  4. Grillo v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  5. Dukes v. DuranteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984

61 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