Cymerys v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Windsor Locks
| Citation | 193 A.2d 521,151 Conn. 49 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 18 July 1963 |
| Parties | Anthony F. CYMERYS v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF WINDSOR LOCKS et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Paul M. Palten, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Charles Alfano, Suffield, for appellant (plaintiff).
John D. LaBelle, Manchester, with whom were Seymour A. Rothenberg, Manchester, and, on the brief, Richard C. Woodhouse, Manchester, for appellees (defendants Jarvis and others); with him also was Anthony C. Ward, Windsor Lock, for appellee (named defendant).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ.
The defendant zoning board of appeals of Windsor Locks granted a variance in the application of § 8.8(a) of the zoning ordinance of the town to certain lands owned by the defendant Alexander Jarvis and leased by him to the defendant Henry P. Carville. Section 8.8(a) of the ordinance provides in substance that no premises shall be used for selling or exchanging alcoholic beverages, at wholesale or retail, for consumption on or off the premises, if the premises are within 2000 feet, in a direct line, from any other premises which are used for any of those purposes. The plaintiff, a nearby property owner claiming to be aggrieved by the board's action, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which rendered judgment sustaining the board. The plaintiff has appealed from that judgment.
The board's action was predicated on § 8-6(3) of the General Statutes, which empowers a zoning board of appeals to vary the application of the zoning regulations where, 'owing to conditions especially affecting * * * [a] parcel [of land] but not affecting generally the district in which it is situated, a literal enforcement of * * * [the] regulations would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship so that substantial justice will be done and the public safety and welfare secured.' A hardship under this provision must differ in kind from the hardship imposed on properties generally by the regulations. Makar v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 150 Conn. 391, 396, 190 A.2d 45; Benoit v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 148 Conn. 443, 445, 172 A.2d 71. 'The conditions created by the operation of the regulations must be peculiarly oppressive to the applicant's property.' Makar v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 150 Conn. 397, 190 A.2d 48; Murphy, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 147 Conn. 358, 360, 161 A.2d 185.
The conclusions of the board, which are set forth in full in the minutes, show that it relied on the following facts: The land for which the variance was granted, hereinafter referred to as the Carville-leased property, is substantially 600 by 400 feet in area and is located in a business zone on the easterly side of Turnpike Road, a north-south artery in Windsor Locks. It is proposed to erect a motel and restaurant on the premises. On the westerly side of Turnpike Road, and opposite the business zone for more than its entire length, lies Bradley Field, a large airport. A restaurant with a permit for the sale of alcoholic liquors is 1532.54 feet south of the Carville-leased property, and a package store for the sale of alcoholic liquors is 627 feet north of it. One of the main flight paths of planes using Bradley Field extends in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hartford
...of this court in recent years. See, e. g., Krejpcio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 657, 211 A.2d 687; Cymerys v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 49, 193 A.2d 521; Makar v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 150 Conn. 391, 190 A.2d 45. One seeking a variance must show that his property is pe......
-
W A T R, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Bethany
...those needs will be satisfied is vested exclusively in the zoning commission by § 8-2 of the General Statutes. Cymerys v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 49, 52, 193 A.2d 521; Finch v. Montanari, 143 Conn. 542, 545, 124 A.2d 214; Service Realty Corporation v. Planning & Zoning Board of A......
-
Michler v. Planning
...Greenwich zoning regulations, or any condition that is “ ‘peculiarly oppressive’ ” to the subject property. Cymerys v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 49, 51, 193 A.2d 521 (1963). As the plaintiffs note, the effect of § 6-131(b) is to reduce the building area for all rear lots. There is ......
-
Lessner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Manchester
...894. The board has found that the hardship is peculiar to this particular property and oppressive as to it. See Cymerys v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 49, 51, 193 A.2d 521. The plaintiff places great reliance on Misuk v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 138 Conn. 477, 86 A.2d 180, and Wil-No......