Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
35 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1963–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Langer v. Planning & Zoning Commissiongreen2 sentences2009See Langer v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 163 Conn. 453, 457 , 313 A.2d 44 (1972) (under § 8-6 “the power to vary the ordinance . . . lies exclusively in a [zoning] board of appeals”). 2009See Langer v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 163 Conn. 453, 457 , 313 A.2d 44 (1972) (under § 8-6 “the power to vary the ordinance . . . lies exclusively in a [zoning] board of appeals”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1996A local zoning board has the power to grant a variance under General Statutes § 8-6 (3) when two basic conditions are met: "(1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan." Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 174 Conn. 323 , 326 (1978). 1995Standard of Review A local zoning board has the power to grant a variance under General Statutes § 8-6 (3) where two basic conditions are satisfied: "(1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan." Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 174 Conn. 323 , 326 , 387 A.2d 542 (1978). | 15 | 1982–1998 |
Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences2008“A variance constitutes permission to act in a manner that is otherwise prohibited under the zoning law of the town.” Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 Conn. 198, 206 , 658 A.2d 559 (1995). “[T]he authority of a zoning board of appeals to grant a variance under General Statutes § 8-6 (3) requires the fulfillment of two conditions: (1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning p 2008“A variance constitutes permission to act in a manner that is otherwise prohibited under the zoning law of the town.” Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 Conn. 198, 206 , 658 A.2d 559 (1995). “[T]he authority of a zoning board of appeals to grant a variance under General Statutes § 8-6 (3) requires the fulfillment of two conditions: (1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning p | 13 | 1988–2008 |
Whittaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1989The plaintiff’s first claim, which is dispositive of this appeal, is that the trial court erred in finding that the record revealed sufficient evidence of hardship as required by General Statutes § 8-6. 6 “ ‘A local zoning board has the power to grant a variance under General Statutes § 8-6 (3) where two basic conditions are satisfied: “(1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning 1989The plaintiff’s first claim, which is dispositive of this appeal, is that the trial court erred in finding that the record revealed sufficient evidence of hardship as required by General Statutes § 8-6. 6 “ ‘A local zoning board has the power to grant a variance under General Statutes § 8-6 (3) where two basic conditions are satisfied: “(1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning | 8 | 1982–1998 |
Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences2008“A variance constitutes permission to act in a manner that is otherwise prohibited under the zoning law of the town.” Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 Conn. 198, 206 , 658 A.2d 559 (1995). “[T]he authority of a zoning board of appeals to grant a variance under General Statutes § 8-6 (3) requires the fulfillment of two conditions: (1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning p 2008“A variance constitutes permission to act in a manner that is otherwise prohibited under the zoning law of the town.” Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 Conn. 198, 206 , 658 A.2d 559 (1995). “[T]he authority of a zoning board of appeals to grant a variance under General Statutes § 8-6 (3) requires the fulfillment of two conditions: (1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning p | 2 | 2002–2008 |
Aitken v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1998Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 174 Conn. 323 , 326 (1978); Whittaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 179 Conn. 650 , 655 (1980); Aitken v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 18 Conn. App. 195 , 204 (1989). 1993Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 206 Conn. 362 , 368 ; Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 703 , 709 ; Whittaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 179 Conn. 650 , 655 ; Aitken v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 18 Conn. App. 195 , 204 . | 2 | 1993–1998 |
Eagan v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1996A zoning board may grant a variance from the regulations "if strict adherence to the zoning ordinance would cause unusual hardship unnecessary to achieving the [zoning] plan's purpose." Eagan v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 20 Conn. App. 561 , 563 (1990). 1995"Proof of hardship is, therefore, a condition precedent to the granting of a CT Page 2552 variance, and such hardship must arise from the circumstances or conditions beyond the applicant's control." Eagan v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 20 Conn. App. 561 , 563 , 568 A.2d 811 (1990). | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Kaeser v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1995For a zoning board of appeals to grant a variance under section 8-6 (a)(3), two requirements must be met: "`(1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan.'" 4 Francini v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 228 Conn. 790 ; Zarembski v. Easton Zoning Board, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 30 53 67 (January 25, 1994, Fuller, J.). "`It is well 1995For a zoning board of appeals to grant a variance under section 8-6 (a)(3), two requirements must be met: "`(1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan.'" 4 Francini v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 228 Conn. 790 ; Zarembski v. Easton Zoning Board, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 30 53 67 (January 25, 1994, Fuller, J.). "`It is well | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1993Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 206 Conn. 362 , 368 ; Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 703 , 709 ; Whittaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 179 Conn. 650 , 655 ; Aitken v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 18 Conn. App. 195 , 204 . 1991The authority of a Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance under General Statutes section 8-6 (3) requires the fulfillment of two conditions: "(1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan." Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 703 , 709 (1988). | 2 | 1991–1993 |
Florentine v. Town of Darien
green
2 sentences1973Florentine v. Darien, 142 Conn. 415, 425 , 115 A.2d 328 , and authorities cited. 1973Florentine v. Darien, 142 Conn. 415, 425 , 115 A.2d 328 , and authorities cited. | 2 | 1963–1973 |
Reid v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences2001"Variances cannot be personal in nature, and may be based only upon property conditions." Reid v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 235 Conn. 850 , 857 , 670 A.2d 1271 (1996). 2001"Variances cannot be personal in nature, and may be based only upon property conditions." Reid v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 235 Conn. 850 , 857 , 670 A.2d 1271 (1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ward v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
1 sentence2000Ward v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 153 Conn. 141 , 145 (1965) and proof of hardship is a condition precedent. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Garibaldi v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
1 sentence1995The defendants cite Garibaldi v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Norwalk, 163 Conn. 235 (1972), for this proposition. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Talmadge v. Board of Zoning Appeals
green
2 sentences1992"The power of authorizing variances is to be sparingly exercised." Talmadge v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 141 Conn. 639 , 643 , 109 A.2d 253 (1954). 1992"The power of authorizing variances is to be sparingly exercised." Talmadge v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 141 Conn. 639 , 643 , 109 A.2d 253 (1954). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Spencer v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
1 sentence1991Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 206 Conn. 362 , 368 ; Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 174 Conn. 323 , 326 ; Spencer v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 15 Conn. App. 387 , 389 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1989(Footnote omitted.)” Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 4 Conn. App. 205, 208 , 493 A.2d 275 (1985). 1989(Footnote omitted.)” Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 4 Conn. App. 205, 208 , 493 A.2d 275 (1985). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.