From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Mar 2, 2006
277 Conn. 918 (Conn. 2006)

Summary

emphasizing the physical characteristics of the property as the basis for the Giarrantano decision

Summary of this case from CROSS STREET, LLC v. WESTPORT ZBA

Opinion

Frank S. Marcucci, in support of the petition.

Decided March 2, 2006.


The petition by the defendant M E Construction, Inc., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 93 Conn. App. 1 (AC 25837), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the variance granted by the named defendant, the zoning board of appeals of the town of North Branford, was improper because the hardship was merely financial?"

KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17620.


Summaries of

Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Mar 2, 2006
277 Conn. 918 (Conn. 2006)

emphasizing the physical characteristics of the property as the basis for the Giarrantano decision

Summary of this case from CROSS STREET, LLC v. WESTPORT ZBA
Case details for

Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Case Details

Full title:WANDA VINE v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF NORTH BRANFORD ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Mar 2, 2006

Citations

277 Conn. 918 (Conn. 2006)

Citing Cases

Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals

We granted the defendants' separate petitions for certification to appeal limited to the following issue:…

Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals

" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 277 Conn. 918, 895 A.2d 794 (2006).…