B. I. B. Associates v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Stamford

• Decision Date: 05 July 1972
• Citation: B. I. B. Associates v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Stamford, 316 A.2d 414, 163 Conn. 615 (Conn. 1972)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: B.I.B. ASSOCIATES v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the CITY OF STAMFORD et al.

Page 414

316 A.2d 414

163 Conn. 615

B.I.B. ASSOCIATES v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the CITY OF STAMFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

July 5, 1972.

William M. Ivler, Stamford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Gordon R. Paterson, Stamford, for appellee (defendant Better Housing, Inc.).

Theodore Godlin, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for appellees (named defendant and others).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and COTTER, RYAN, SHAPIRO and MacDONALD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County which dismissed its appeal from the action of the defendant zoning board of appeals in granting to the Housing Site Development Agency of the city of Stamford and Better Housing, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the applicants, a variance from the operation of the Stamford zoning regulations. The applicants proposed to erect multiple-family dwelling units on their property on Glenbrook Road in Stamford and requested the variance to permit them to erect the units with provision for only thirty-five off-street parking spaces instead of the fifty-two spaces required by the zoning regulations.

The record discloses that the applicants did not acquire title to the Glenbrook Road property until eight months after the effective per unit parking regulation was adopted. The defendant board granted the variance on the ground that '(s)trict application of the regulations would produce unique and undue hardship and would not change the character of the neighborhood because: The premises were originally contracted for before the parking amendment was made and it will be impossible to build the proposed housing without such variance.'

As recently as in Baribaldi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 163 Conn. 235, 238, 303 A.2d 743, we reiterated that '(i)t is clear that for a hardship to justify the granting of a variance, the hardship must be different in kind from that affecting generally properties in the same zoning district,' citing Belknap v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 380, 383, 232 A.2d 922, and Ward v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 141, 143, 215 A.2d 104. We also there noted that 'a variance is not a personal exemption from the enforcement of zoning regulations. It is a legal status granted to a certain parcel of realty without regard to ownership. It is for this reason that the rule is well established that the financial loss or the potential of financial advantage to the applicant is not the proper basis for a...