application for a special exception in Connecticut

26 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1967–2020 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Huhta v. Zoning Board of Appealsgreen conn · 1964 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1967–2004 2 sentences 2004When the provisions of a zoning regulation contain requirements or procedures mirroring those found in special exceptions, we have held that an application qualifies as an application for a special exception in substance even though the regulation does not identify or label the application as one for a “special exception.” Etzel v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 539, 540-41 , 235 A.2d 647 (1967); Powers v. Common Council, 154 Conn. 156, 159-60 , 222 A.2d 337 (1966); see also Huhta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 694, 696 , 202 A.2d 139 (1964) (“[w]hether or not . . . [the] term [spec 2004When the provisions of a zoning regulation contain requirements or procedures mirroring those found in special exceptions, we have held that an application qualifies as an application for a special exception in substance even though the regulation does not identify or label the application as one for a “special exception.” Etzel v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 539, 540-41 , 235 A.2d 647 (1967); Powers v. Common Council, 154 Conn. 156, 159-60 , 222 A.2d 337 (1966); see also Huhta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 694, 696 , 202 A.2d 139 (1964) (“[w]hether or not . . . [the] term [spec	1	2
Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commissiongreen conn · 1994 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See id., § 502; see also Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619, 627 , 711 A.2d 675 (1998) (“general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare, which are enumerated in zoning regulations, may be the basis for the denial of a special permit”); Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 229 Conn. 176, 177 , 640 A.2d 100 (1994) (“in the case of a special permit, zoning regulations may authorize a planning and zoning commission to deny an application on the basis of enumerated general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare”). 2004See id., § 502; see also Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619, 627 , 711 A.2d 675 (1998) (“general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare, which are enumerated in zoning regulations, may be the basis for the denial of a special permit”); Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 229 Conn. 176, 177 , 640 A.2d 100 (1994) (“in the case of a special permit, zoning regulations may authorize a planning and zoning commission to deny an application on the basis of enumerated general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare”).	1	1
Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commissiongreen conn · 1998 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See id., § 502; see also Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619, 627 , 711 A.2d 675 (1998) (“general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare, which are enumerated in zoning regulations, may be the basis for the denial of a special permit”); Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 229 Conn. 176, 177 , 640 A.2d 100 (1994) (“in the case of a special permit, zoning regulations may authorize a planning and zoning commission to deny an application on the basis of enumerated general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare”). 2004See id., § 502; see also Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619, 627 , 711 A.2d 675 (1998) (“general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare, which are enumerated in zoning regulations, may be the basis for the denial of a special permit”); Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 229 Conn. 176, 177 , 640 A.2d 100 (1994) (“in the case of a special permit, zoning regulations may authorize a planning and zoning commission to deny an application on the basis of enumerated general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare”).	1	1
Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appealsgreen connappct · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 74 Conn. App. 155, 165 , 810 A.2d 312 (2002). 2004See Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 74 Conn. App. 155, 165 , 810 A.2d 312 (2002).	1	1
Bradley v. Inland Wetlands Agencygreen connappct · 1992 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001See Bradley v. Inland Wetlands Agency , 28 Conn. App. 48 .	1	1
Koepke v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Coventrygreen conn · 1992 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Connecticut General Statutes § 8-2 and Koepke v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 223 Conn. 171 , 610 A.2d 171 (1992), Schwartz v. Town of Hamden, 168 Conn. 8 , 15 , 357 A.2d 480 (1975).	1	1
Sowin Associates v. Planning & Zoning Commissiongreen connappct · 1990 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See also, Sowin Associates v. Planning and Zoning Commission, CT Page 11826 23 Conn. App. 370 (1990).	1	1
Schwartz v. Town of Hamdengreen conn · 1975 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Connecticut General Statutes § 8-2 and Koepke v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 223 Conn. 171 , 610 A.2d 171 (1992), Schwartz v. Town of Hamden, 168 Conn. 8 , 15 , 357 A.2d 480 (1975).	1	1
Barberino Realty & Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commissiongreen connappct · 1991 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (23)

Case	Cited	Years
Daughters of St. Paul, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals green connappct · 1988 2 sentences 2002Paul, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 17 Conn. App. 53, 56 , 549 A.2d 1076 (1988). 2002Paul, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 17 Conn. App. 53, 56 , 549 A.2d 1076 (1988).	3	1993–2002
Farina v. Zoning Board of Appeals green conn · 1969 2 sentences 1993In Stratford, an "application for approval as a special case amounts to an application for a special exception." Maher v. Town Planning and Zoning Commission, 157 Conn. 420 , 422 , 254 A.2d 492 (1967). 1993In Stratford, an "application for approval as a special case amounts to an application for a special exception." Maher v. Town Planning and Zoning Commission, 157 Conn. 420 , 422 , 254 A.2d 492 (1967).	3	1992–1998
Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals green conn · 2004 2 sentences 2020Thus, we have explained that the goal of an application for a special exception is to seek permission to vary the use of a particular piece of property from that for which it is zoned, without offending the uses permitted as of right in the particular zoning district.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 270 Conn. 447 , 453-54, 853 A.2d 511 (2004). 2020Thus, we have explained that the goal of an application for a special exception is to seek permission to vary the use of a particular piece of property from that for which it is zoned, without offending the uses permitted as of right in the particular zoning district.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 270 Conn. 447 , 453-54, 853 A.2d 511 (2004).	2	2008–2020
Barberino Realty & Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission green conn · 1992 2 sentences 2016Barberino Realty & Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , supra, 222 Conn. at 614 , 610 A.2d 1205 . 2008The reason for this requirement is that, although such uses “are not as intrusive as commercial uses . . . they do generate parking and traffic problems that, if not prop *433 erly planned for, might undermine the residential character of the neighborhood.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 612-13 ; see also Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 270 Conn. 454 (“the goal of an application for a special exception is to seek permission to vary the use of a particular piece of property from that for which it is zoned, without offending the uses permitted as of right in t	2	2008–2016
Quality Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission green connappct · 1999 2 sentences 2002It has no discretion to deny the special exception if the regulations and statutes are satisfied.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 537 . 1999Holding Corporation v. Planning and Zoning Board , 167 Conn. 182 , 185 , 355 A.2d 91 (1974); Quality Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission , 55 Conn. App. 533 ___ A.2d ___ (1999).	2	1999–2002
Beckish v. Planning & Zoning Commission green conn · 1971 2 sentences 2001Beckish v. Planning Zoning Commission , 162 Conn. 11 , 15 (1971) When acting upon an application for a special exception or a special permit, the planning and zoning commission acts in an administrative capacity, rather than in a legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. 1992Beckish v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 162 Conn. 11 , 15 .	2	1992–2001
A.P. & W. Holding Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Board green conn · 1974 2 sentences 2000Holding v. Planning and Zoning Board , 167 Conn. 182 , 185 (1974). 1999Holding Corporation v. Planning and Zoning Board , 167 Conn. 182 , 185 , 355 A.2d 91 (1974); Quality Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission , 55 Conn. App. 533 ___ A.2d ___ (1999).	2	1999–2000
Caltabiano v. Planning & Zoning Commission green conn · 1989 2 sentences 2014Fortunately, our Supreme Court twice has interpreted the particular statutory language at issue.7 Caltabiano v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 662, 664 , 560 A.2d 975 (1989), involved an application for a special exception to excavate a ‘‘3.8 acre parcel located deep within [a] 110 acre parcel.’’ The planning and zoning commission granted that request and the plaintiffs, whose property either abutted or was within 100 feet of the 110 acre parcel, filed an administrative appeal in the Superior Court. 2014Fortunately, our Supreme Court twice has interpreted the particular statutory language at issue.7 Caltabiano v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 662, 664 , 560 A.2d 975 (1989), involved an application for a special exception to excavate a ‘‘3.8 acre parcel located deep within [a] 110 acre parcel.’’ The planning and zoning commission granted that request and the plaintiffs, whose property either abutted or was within 100 feet of the 110 acre parcel, filed an administrative appeal in the Superior Court.	1	2014–2014
Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission green conn · 2008 2 sentences 2009Thus, we have explained that the goal of an application for a special exception is to seek permission to vary the use of a particular piece of property from that for which it is zoned, without offending the uses permitted as of right in the particular zoning district.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 285 Conn. 381, 426-27 , 941 A.2d 868 (2008). 2009Thus, we have explained that the goal of an application for a special exception is to seek permission to vary the use of a particular piece of property from that for which it is zoned, without offending the uses permitted as of right in the particular zoning district.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 285 Conn. 381, 426-27 , 941 A.2d 868 (2008).	1	2009–2009
Hobbs v. Albanese green nyappdiv · 1979 2 sentences 2008App. 285, 297 , 347 A.2d 572 (1975) (“traffic impact on an application for a special exception ought to be measured against that which could arise under permissible use'’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Hobbs v. Albanese, 70 App. Div. 2d 1049, 1050, 417 N.Y.S.2d 556 (1979) (defendant board of trustees lawfully may deny special permit if “proposed use would have a greater 434 impact on the traffic in the area than would other permitted uses not subject to special permits”); Fantastic Plastic, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 16 Pa. Commw. 455, 461 , 332 A.2d 577 (1975) (in absence of e 2008App. 285, 297 , 347 A.2d 572 (1975) (“traffic impact on an application for a special exception ought to be measured against that which could arise under permissible use'’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Hobbs v. Albanese, 70 App. Div. 2d 1049, 1050, 417 N.Y.S.2d 556 (1979) (defendant board of trustees lawfully may deny special permit if “proposed use would have a greater 434 impact on the traffic in the area than would other permitted uses not subject to special permits”); Fantastic Plastic, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 16 Pa. Commw. 455, 461 , 332 A.2d 577 (1975) (in absence of e	1	2008–2008
Fantastic Plastic, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment neutral pacommwct · 1975 2 sentences 2008App. 285, 297 , 347 A.2d 572 (1975) (“traffic impact on an application for a special exception ought to be measured against that which could arise under permissible use'’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Hobbs v. Albanese, 70 App. Div. 2d 1049, 1050, 417 N.Y.S.2d 556 (1979) (defendant board of trustees lawfully may deny special permit if “proposed use would have a greater 434 impact on the traffic in the area than would other permitted uses not subject to special permits”); Fantastic Plastic, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 16 Pa. Commw. 455, 461 , 332 A.2d 577 (1975) (in absence of e 2008App. 285, 297 , 347 A.2d 572 (1975) (“traffic impact on an application for a special exception ought to be measured against that which could arise under permissible use'’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Hobbs v. Albanese, 70 App. Div. 2d 1049, 1050, 417 N.Y.S.2d 556 (1979) (defendant board of trustees lawfully may deny special permit if “proposed use would have a greater 434 impact on the traffic in the area than would other permitted uses not subject to special permits”); Fantastic Plastic, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 16 Pa. Commw. 455, 461 , 332 A.2d 577 (1975) (in absence of e	1	2008–2008
Miller v. Kiwanis Club of Loch Raven, Inc. green mdctspecapp · 1975 2 sentences 2008App. 285, 297 , 347 A.2d 572 (1975) (“traffic impact on an application for a special exception ought to be measured against that which could arise under permissible use'’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Hobbs v. Albanese, 70 App. Div. 2d 1049, 1050, 417 N.Y.S.2d 556 (1979) (defendant board of trustees lawfully may deny special permit if “proposed use would have a greater 434 impact on the traffic in the area than would other permitted uses not subject to special permits”); Fantastic Plastic, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 16 Pa. Commw. 455, 461 , 332 A.2d 577 (1975) (in absence of e 2008*We address all of the society’s claims because they raise both legal and factual issues that could arise again if the society chooses to resubmit an application for a special exception. 30 The commission apparently was referring to reports that more than 500 people and 150 cars had been on the property during celebrations in 2000. 31 Bethlehem Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, 73 Conn. App. 444 -45, involved an application for a special exception to build a church in a residential zone. 32 See, e.g., Miller v. Kiwanis Club of Loch Raven, Inc., 29 Md.	1	2008–2008
Conto v. Zoning Commission of Washington green conn · 1982 1 sentence 2006E.g., Conto v. Zoning Commission, 186 Conn. 106, 114 , 489 A.2d 441 (1982). 6 General Statutes § 8-5 (a) provides in relevant part: “In each municipality having a zoning commission there shall be a zoning board of appeals consisting of five regular members and three alternate members, unless otherwise provided by special act. . . .” 7 Pursuant to General Statutes § 8-6 (a) (2), a zoning board of appeals shall also have the power “to hear and decide all matters including special exceptions and special exemptions . . . upon which it is required to pass by the specific terms of the zoning bylaw,	1	2006–2006
Etzel v. Zoning Board of Appeals green conn · 1967 2 sentences 2004When the provisions of a zoning regulation contain requirements or procedures mirroring those found in special exceptions, we have held that an application qualifies as an application for a special exception in substance even though the regulation does not identify or label the application as one for a “special exception.” Etzel v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 539, 540-41 , 235 A.2d 647 (1967); Powers v. Common Council, 154 Conn. 156, 159-60 , 222 A.2d 337 (1966); see also Huhta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 694, 696 , 202 A.2d 139 (1964) (“[w]hether or not . . . [the] term [spec 2004When the provisions of a zoning regulation contain requirements or procedures mirroring those found in special exceptions, we have held that an application qualifies as an application for a special exception in substance even though the regulation does not identify or label the application as one for a “special exception.” Etzel v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 539, 540-41 , 235 A.2d 647 (1967); Powers v. Common Council, 154 Conn. 156, 159-60 , 222 A.2d 337 (1966); see also Huhta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 694, 696 , 202 A.2d 139 (1964) (“[w]hether or not . . . [the] term [spec	1	2004–2004
A. Aiudi & Sons, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission green conn · 2004 2 sentences 2004Thus, we have explained that the goal of an application for a special exception is to seek permission to vary the use of a particular piece of property from that for which it is zoned, without offending the uses permitted as of right in the particular zoning district.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) A. Aiudi & Sons, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 267 Conn. 192, 203-204 , 837 A.2d 748 (2004). 2004Thus, we have explained that the goal of an application for a special exception is to seek permission to vary the use of a particular piece of property from that for which it is zoned, without offending the uses permitted as of right in the particular zoning district.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) A. Aiudi & Sons, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 267 Conn. 192, 203-204 , 837 A.2d 748 (2004).	1	2004–2004
Powers v. Common Council green conn · 1966 2 sentences 2004When the provisions of a zoning regulation contain requirements or procedures mirroring those found in special exceptions, we have held that an application qualifies as an application for a special exception in substance even though the regulation does not identify or label the application as one for a “special exception.” Etzel v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 539, 540-41 , 235 A.2d 647 (1967); Powers v. Common Council, 154 Conn. 156, 159-60 , 222 A.2d 337 (1966); see also Huhta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 694, 696 , 202 A.2d 139 (1964) (“[w]hether or not . . . [the] term [spec 2004When the provisions of a zoning regulation contain requirements or procedures mirroring those found in special exceptions, we have held that an application qualifies as an application for a special exception in substance even though the regulation does not identify or label the application as one for a “special exception.” Etzel v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 539, 540-41 , 235 A.2d 647 (1967); Powers v. Common Council, 154 Conn. 156, 159-60 , 222 A.2d 337 (1966); see also Huhta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 694, 696 , 202 A.2d 139 (1964) (“[w]hether or not . . . [the] term [spec	1	2004–2004
Gregorio v. Zoning Board of Appeals green conn · 1967 1 sentence 2002Weigel v. Planning and Zoning Commission , 160 Conn. 239 , 246 (1971); Gregorio v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 155 Conn. 422 , 429 (1962).	1	2002–2002
Weigel v. Planning & Zoning Commission green conn · 1971 1 sentence 2002Weigel v. Planning and Zoning Commission , 160 Conn. 239 , 246 (1971); Gregorio v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 155 Conn. 422 , 429 (1962).	1	2002–2002
Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency of Greenwich green conn · 1987 1 sentence 2001Huck v. Inland Wetlands Watercourse Agency , 203 Conn. 525 , 530 (1987) Because the plaintiff, The Price Company, was a contract purchaser at the time the application was before the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Milford, and is now the record owner of the property, it is aggrieved by the denial of the application for a special exception.	1	2001–2001
Town of Westport v. City of Norwalk green conn · 1974 1 sentence 2000Although the commission has no discretion but to approve an application for a special exception if the regulations and statutes are satisfied; Westport v. Norwalk , 167 Conn. 151 , 155 (1974); the special permit or special exception process is not purely ministerial.	1	2000–2000
Coastal Suburban Builders, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission green connappct · 1984 2 sentences 1999Although our decision in Coastal Suburban Builders, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 2 Conn. App. 489 , 479 A.2d 1239 (1984), examined whether a zoning commission’s failure to act in a timely manner on an application for a special exception resulted in an automatic approval of the application, it nonetheless provides useful guidance in this context. 1999Although our decision in Coastal Suburban Builders, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 2 Conn. App. 489 , 479 A.2d 1239 (1984), examined whether a zoning commission’s failure to act in a timely manner on an application for a special exception resulted in an automatic approval of the application, it nonetheless provides useful guidance in this context.	1	1999–1999
City of Apopka v. Orange County green fladistctapp · 1974	1	1992–1992
Salve Regina College v. Zoning Board of Review green ri · 1991 1 sentence 1992Salve Regina College v. Zoning Board of Review, 594 A.2d 878 , 882 (R.I. 1991).	1	1992–1992

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-2 (7) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-3 (5) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

MD 44 (1966–2023) PA 32 (1956–2026) CT 26 (1967–2020) RI 13 (1967–2008) NY 8 (1961–2026) IN 7 (1989–2016) FL 6 (1974–2003) DE 2 (2005–2019) DC 2 (1984–2002)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance