Forbes v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of West Haven
| Decision Date | 23 June 1959 |
| Citation | 146 Conn. 547,153 A.2d 458 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edward FORBES v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF WEST HAVEN et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Morris W. Mendlesohn, New Haven, with whom were Charles Henchel and Robert M. Vogel, New Haven, for appellant (defendant Food Basket, Inc.), and with whom, on the brief, was John G. Cicala, West Haven, for appellant (defendant board).
Herbert D. Fischer, West Haven, with whom was Charles H. Fischer, Jr., West Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.
The plaintiff is the owner of a business, at 393 Campbell Avenue in West Haven, known as the West Haven Candy Kitchen. He holds a grocery store beer permit for these premises. On November 20, 1957, the defendant board granted a variance to the defendant Food Basket, Inc., allowing it to remove its grocery store beer permit from 544 Campbell Avenue to 394 Campbell Avenue, directly opposite the plaintiff's establishment. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the action of the board, and from that judgment Food Basket has appealed to this court.
The West Haven zoning regulations prohibit the use of any new location, for the sale of liquor under package store and other similar types of permits allowing the sale but not the consumption of liquor on the premises, within 1500 feet of any building in which such sale is permitted. West Haven Zoning Regs. § 26(1) (1957). The regulations further provide that any business conducted under permits of this class may be moved despite the 1500-foot restriction if the new location is within 500 feet of the former one. Id. § 26(2).
On November 7, 1957, Food Basket applied to the defendant board for a variance in the regulations so that it could move its permit premises to 394 Campbell Avenue, which is more than 500 feet from 544 Campbell Avenue. At the public hearing on November 20, thirteen residents of the town opposed the granting of the variance and a like number favored it. Eleven of those in favor were either owners or employees of Food Basket or their relatives. The record of the hearing disclosed that Food Basket had moved so that its supermarket would have larger premises. It sought the variance so that it could sell beer at the new premises as an accommodation to its customers. The engineer's map showed that there were five other stores, including that of the plaintiff, selling liquor under package store or grocery store beer permits within 1500 feet of 394 Campbell Avenue. The board in granting the variance stated that the new location was peculiarly adapted to supermarket operation and that denial of the application would put Food Basket in competitive disadvantage with other supermarkets in the immediate area. It concluded that a denial would result in unnecessary hardship to Food Basket.
By agreement of counsel for all the parties, the appeal was presented and determined in the trial court on the record of the proceedings before the board. Section 15(10) of the West Haven zoning regulations provides that the board of appeals may ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krejpcio v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Hartford
...the granting of a variance'. Makar v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 150 Conn. 395, 190 A.2d 47; see also Forbes v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 547, 550, 153 A.2d 458; Lindy's Restaurant, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 143 Conn. 620, 623, 124 A.2d 918. Disappointment in the use of......
-
Hyatt v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Norwalk
...We have repeatedly held that financial loss or hardship is not sufficient reason for granting a variance.' Forbes v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 547, 550, 153 A.2d 458, 459; see also Garibaldi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 163 Conn. 235, 303 A.2d 743. In the case before us, there has b......
-
Stember v. Norwalk ZBA, No. CV 01-0185506 S (Conn. Super. 3/11/2004)
...Inn to establish hardship similarly must fail. Competitive advantage is not a recognized ground for a variance. Forbes v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 547, 550 (1959). Disappointment in the use of property does not constitute exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship. Jaser v. Zoning......
-
Mucci Construction v. Town of Stratford Planning Commission, No. CV03 040 39 40 (CT 1/5/2005)
...is not a proper ground for granting a waiver. Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 233 Conn. 198; Forbes v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 547, 550, 153 A.2d 458 (1959). Any hardship that the plaintiffs face is self-created by their failure to request a waiver before commencing cons......