Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-132

(b) If the court appoints a judge trial referee, the judge trial referee, after giving at least ten days' notice to the parties interested of the time and place of hearing, shall hear the applicant and the redevelopment agency, shall view the property and take such testimony as the judge trial referee deems material and shall thereupon revise such statement of compensation in such manner as the judge trial referee deems proper and promptly report to the court. Such report shall contain a detailed statement of findings by the judge trial referee sufficient to enable the court to determine the considerations upon which the judge trial referee's conclusions are based. The report of the judge trial referee shall take into account any evidence relevant to the fair market value of the property, including evidence of environmental condition and required environmental remediation. The judge trial referee shall make a separate finding for remediation costs and the property owner shall be entitled to a set-off of such costs in any pending or subsequent action to recover remediation costs for the property. The court shall review the report, and may reject the report for any irregular or improper conduct in the performance of the duties of the judge trial referee. If the court rejects the report, the court may appoint another judge trial referee to make such review and report. If the court accepts the report, the statement of compensation in the report shall be conclusive upon such owner and the redevelopment agency.

(c) If the court does not appoint a judge trial referee, the court, after giving at least ten days' notice to the parties interested of the time and place of hearing, shall hear the applicant and the redevelopment agency and take such testimony as the court deems material, may view the subject property, and shall make a finding regarding the statement of compensation. The findings of the court shall take into account any evidence relevant to the fair market value of the property, including evidence of environmental condition and required environmental remediation. The court shall make a separate finding for remediation costs and the property owner shall be entitled to a set-off of such costs in any pending or subsequent action to recover remediation costs for the property. The findings of the court shall be conclusive upon such owner and the redevelopment agency.

(d) If no appeal to the Appellate Court is filed within the time allowed by law, or if an appeal is filed and the proceedings have terminated in a final judgment finding the amount due the property owner, the clerk shall send a certified copy of the statement of compensation and of the judgment to the redevelopment agency, which shall, upon receipt thereof, pay such property owner the amount due as compensation. The pendency of any such application for review shall not prevent or delay any action that is proposed with regard to such property by the project area redevelopment plan.
e property owner, the clerk shall send a certified copy of the statement of compensation and of the judgment to the redevelopment agency, which shall, upon receipt thereof, pay such property owner the amount due as compensation. The pendency of any such application for review shall not prevent or delay any action that is proposed with regard to such property by the project area redevelopment plan.

Cited. 147 C. 321. Compensation may take into consideration moving expenses if these affect fair market value. Id., 362. Referee is not bound by opinion of experts; such opinions only aid trier to arrive at his own conclusion which is reached by weighing such opinions in light of all other relevant circumstances and his own general knowledge. 148 C. 513. Statute permits, and indeed requires, referee to raise, lower or leave unchanged the assessment of damages and there was no reason for precluding referee from revising assessment downward. 152 C. 141. Cited. 153 C. 119; 160 C. 492; 168 C. 135; 179 C. 293. Referee did not err in finding that the unique characteristics and special business use of the property were factors enhancing its fair market value. 180 C. 579. Cited. 181 C. 217; 184 C. 444; 203 C. 364; 215 C. 197. A claim alleging a civil rights violation pursuant to 42 USC 1983 is not barred by doctrine of res judicata because such claim cannot be encompassed within the limited scope of review in a condemnation proceeding pursuant to this section. 294 C. 817.

Cited. 1 CA 20; 2 CA 351; Id., 355; 4 CA 271; 7 CA 485. Does not mandate filing of separate action to contest compensation statement. 18 CA 508. Cited. 20 CA 148; 21 CA 359; 23 CA 554; 37 CA 7; 42 CA 292. Defendant could not prevail on claim that trial court's valuation of property taken by eminent domain was inherently flawed because it failed to follow its statutory obligation to actually view the property; under the circumstances, court's failure to view the property was harmless because at time of trial the property no longer existed in same condition as it did at time of taking and, therefore, evidence of court's viewing of property would have been irrelevant. 76 CA 678.

Cited. 35 CS 157.