Highland Park, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of North Haven

• Decision Date: 26 April 1967
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HIGHLAND PARK, INC., et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF NORTH HAVEN.

Page 356

229 A.2d 356

155 Conn. 40

HIGHLAND PARK, INC., et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF NORTH HAVEN.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

April 26, 1967.

David W. Skolnick, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Lawrence J. Carboni, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).

Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.

ALCORN, Associate Justice.

The essential facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff corporation built a house, which it still owns, on lot 19, which it owns in a subdivision developed by it in North Haven. After the house was built, it was found to be located only five feet from the sideline of the lot, whereas the applicable zoning regulations require a minimum sideyard width of ten feet. Another house which the corporation built, and has since sold, on the adjoining lot, was placed twenty-five feet from the boundary line between the two lots so that the houses are actually thirty feet apart.

The plaintiff Leonard Intelisano applied to the defendant zoning board of appeals alleging that he is the owner of lot 19 and seeking a variance of the sideyard requirement on that lot. No point is made of the status of the applicant, apparently because he is the principal stockholder, a director, and the president and chief executive officer of the corporation. The variance was sought on the grounds that the position of the house on lot 19 was due to an error made either by the surveyor or by the foundation contractor employed by the corporation, that the owner of the adjoining lot has demanded an exorbitant price for a strip of land necessary to relocate the dividing line between the lots, and that the type of construction of the house on lot 19 was such that it could not be remodeled or moved and must be demolished unless a variance is granted.

The powers of the defendant board, as defined in § 11.6.3 of the North Haven zoning regulations, are those commonly encountered in conformance with § 8-6(3) of the General Statutes. ¹ The board, following a hearing, denied the application for a variance, stating six reasons for its action. The corporation and Intelisano appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which rendered judgment sustaining the board's action, and they now appeal from that judgment.

The basic question is whether any one of the reasons assigned by the board for its decision is reasonably supported by the record and is pertinent to the considerations which the board is required to apply. DeForest & Hotchkiss Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 152 Conn. 262, 266, 205 A.2d 774; Zieky v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 265, 268, 196 A.2d 758.

One of the reasons stated is that '(t)he applicant still retains ownership of the property and the condition underlying the appeal is self inflicted.' In other words, any hardship present in the situation is due to the property owner's own error, or the error of those employed by the owner, and does not arise from the application of the zoning regulations themselves. Wil-Nor corporation v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 27, 31, 147 A.2d 197; Misuk v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 138 Conn. 477, 481...