Legal Opinion

Rosenberg v. Planning Board

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 19, 1967PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThim, J.

The defendant Edward H. Benenson owns approximately thirty-five acres of unimproved land in Stamford on which he desires to construct office and laboratory buildings. Benenson’s land is presently designated in the city’s master plan as “Residential Single Family Plots Less Than One Acre.” It is also zoned for that use on the city’s zoning map. A change in the zone classification is necessary before the land can be put to the contemplated , use. The Stamford municipal charter provides that j the zoning map cannot be amended by the zoning f board “to permit a use in any area which is contrary j…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Corsino v. GroverSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
  2. Levinsky v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
  3. Gordon v. Zoning BoardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
  4. Malafronte v. Planning & Zoning BoardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
  5. Metropolitan Homes, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Sheridan v. Planning BoardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
  2. Norwich Land Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
  3. Stiles v. Town CouncilSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
  4. Thomas v. RoperSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  5. Czarnecki v. Plastics Liquidating Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1979

11 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