Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6a (2026)

Appeal to be heard before variance when both joined

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever an application to a zoning board of appeals for the grant of a variance is joined with an appeal from any order, requirement or decision made by the official charged with the enforcement of this chapter, or any bylaw, ordinance or regulation adopted under the provisions of this chapter, the board shall first decide the issues presented by such appeal.

(P.A. 75-86, S. 1.)

Cited. 219 C. 352; 225 C. 691; 226 C. 80.

Cited. 20 CA 302; 34 CA 552.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1989–2011 · leading case: Wnuk v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 626 A.2d 698 (Conn. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wnuk v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 626 A.2d 698 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 7× “On appeal to this court, the plaintiffs make two principal arguments for overturning the variance: (1) the board’s failure to decide West Main’s appeal before granting a variance violated General Statutes § 8-6a; and (2) neither the alleged arbitrariness of the zoning officer’s…”

Miniter v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 566 A.2d 997 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 6× “This was not done here. There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with law.”

Komondy v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 16 A.3d 741 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 3× “As this court has observed, “[t]he plain language of [General Statutes] § 8-6a clearly allows a party to file a bifurcated claim with a zoning board relying on both [General Statutes] § 8-6 (1) and § 8-6 (3) and requesting simultaneous relief under each of these subsections.”

Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm'n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005). “See Conn. Gen.Stat. § 8-6a. A variance is more than a mere remedial measure.”

Miniter v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 642 A.2d 67 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 6× “2d 997 (1989), relying on General Statutes § 8-6a, 2 ruled that the appeal and the request for a variance were not mutually exclusive.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.