Boyko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv94 031 40 18 (Jun. 29, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Boyko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv94 031 40 18 (Jun. 29, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6255

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 29, 1995

DocketNo. CV94 031 40 18

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6255 (Boyko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv94 031 40 18 (Jun. 29, 1995)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv94 031 40 18 (Jun. 29, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6255 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiffs are found to be aggrieved since they are owners of the land involved in the board's decision. The record supports the board's finding that a variance here would not be in harmony with the comprehensive plan, which is to be found in the scheme of the Zoning Regulations. The variance sought would result in two seperate [separate] single family dwelling units on a single lot. In addition, the record supports the finding of no hardship. The observation of the board's attorney at oral argument that no evidence was adduced before the board as to why an interior CT Page 6256 apartment could not be installed is well taken. In addition, no reason was proffered to why the size of the apartment sought had to be in excess of that required by the Zoning Regulations.

Cf. Allen v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 506, 510-511 (1967); Scobie v. Idarola, 155 Conn. 22, 23-24 (1967).

The appeal is dismissed.

BY THE COURT

LEVIN, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiffs are found to be aggrieved since they are owners of the land involved in the board's decision. The record supports the board's finding that a variance here would not be in harmony with the comprehensive plan, which is to be found in the scheme of the Zoning Regulations. The variance sought would result in two seperate [separate] single family dwelling units on a single lot. In addition, the record supports the finding of no hardship. The observation of the board's attorney at oral argument that no evidence was adduced before the board as to why an interior CT Page 6256 apartment could not be installed is well taken. In addition, no reason was proffered to why the size of the apartment sought had to be in excess of that required by the Zoning Regulations.

Cf. Allen v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 506, 510-511 (1967); Scobie v. Idarola, 155 Conn. 22, 23-24 (1967).

The appeal is dismissed.

BY THE COURT

LEVIN, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyko-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-no-cv94-031-40-18-jun-29-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack