Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Supreme Court of Connecticut
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
- A.P. & W. Holding Corp. v. Planning & Zoning BoardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- DeMaria v. Enfield Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Garibaldi v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Parsons v. Board of Zoning AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Goldberg v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Adolphson v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Bloom v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Whittaker v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Grillo v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Dukes v. DuranteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.