Cowles v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Manchester
| Decision Date | 28 October 1965 |
| Citation | 214 A.2d 361,153 Conn. 116 |
| Parties | Alton B. COWLES v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF MANCHESTER et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Robert W. Gordon, Manchester, for appellant (plaintiff).
Eugene T. Kelly, Manchester, with whom, on the brief, were Leon Podrove and William B. Collins, Manchester, for appellee (defendant Miller); with him also was Irving L. Aronson, Hartford, for appellee (named defendant).
Maxwell L. Miller conducts a retail drugstore in a business zone 1 in Manchester. The sale of alcoholic liquor is prohibited in that zone. The defendant zoning board of appeals, on November 18, 1963, granted Miller's application for a variance to permit the retail sale of alcoholic liquor in his drugstore. The plaintiff, a nearby resident and taxpayer, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed the appeal. This appeal followed.
The plaintiff, as a taxpayer, is an aggrieved person in a case in which traffic in liquor is involved without having to show that he has an interest peculiar to himself. Tyler v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 145 Conn. 655, 660, 145 A.2d 832. As such, he can prosecute his appeal.
The board gave as its reason for granting the variance: The first reason makes no sense. If there is to be no display, it is difficult to understand how it could be limited to a confined area. The zoning regulations in Manchester make no provision for a variance for a 'unique hardship.' From the record of the hearing before the board, Miller considers his situation unique in that 'it's the only drugstore in Town thats [sic] situated all by itself, or doesn't have the sale of liquor to complement and integrate its sales as a drug store.' He is disappointed that the business area in which he located his store nine years before has not grown into the neighborhood shopping center which was then envisaged. At most that would be an economic hardship, and we have repeatedly held that such a hardship as well as disappointment in the use of the property is not sufficient for a variance. Krejpcio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 657, 662, 211 A.2d 687, and cases cited. The trial court should have sustained the appeal.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vine v. Zon. Bd. of Appeals of N. Branford
...enrichment of particular landowner nor highest and best use of land are controlling purpose of zoning); Cowles v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 116, 117-18, 214 A.2d 361 (1965); Stancuna v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 66 Conn.App. 565, 570, 785 A.2d 601 (2001); Jaser v. Zoning Board of Ap......
-
Liquor v. Zoning Board of Appeals of The City of Bridgeport
... ... Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee and a principal of ... Testo's Pizzeria. The Pizzeria is located in Fairfield, ... v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 155 Conn. 280, 281-82, ... 231 A.2d 272 (1967); Cowles v. Zoning Board of ... Appeals , 153 Conn. 116, 214 A.2d 361 (1965); ... Zuckerman v ... ...
-
Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Bridgeport
...(1968); M. & R. Enterprises, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 280, 281-82, 231 A.2d 272 (1967); Cowles v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 116, 117, 214 A.2d 361 (1965); Whitney Theatre Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 150 Conn. 285, 287, 189 A.2d 396 (1963); London v. Planning &......
-
Success, Inc. v. Zoning Comm'n of Stratford
... Success, Inc. v. Zoning Commission of the Town of Stratford et al No. CV166054518S Superior Court of Connecticut, ... Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 237 Conn ... 184, 186-87, 676 A.2d 831 (1996), M& R Enterprises, ... 280, 281-82, ... 231 A.2d 272 (1967); Cowles v. Zoning Board of ... Appeals , 153 Conn. 116, 214 A.2d 361 (1965); ... ...