Horwitz v. Town of Waterford
| Decision Date | 21 January 1964 |
| Citation | 197 A.2d 636,151 Conn. 320 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jacob H. HORWITZ et al. v. TOWN OF WATERFORD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Francis J. Pavetti, New London, for appellants (defendants).
Sidney Axelrod, New Haven, with whom was Abraham A. Lubchansky, New London, for appellees (plaintiffs).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ.
The plaintiffs brought this action for a declaratory judgment to determine whether a certain ordinance adopted by the defendant town is constitutional as applied to the plaintiffs' land. The court rendered judgment declaring the ordinance unconstitutional and issued an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the ordinance against the plaintiffs. The defendants have appealed.
In 1946, the plaintiffs purchased a lot in Waterford with a frontage of about 73 feet on Long Island Sound on the south and a depth of about 728 feet. The northern side of the lot is approximately 90 feet wide and abuts a private right of way which runs in an easterly and westerly direction. This right of way connects with another private right of way leading northerly to Shore Road, the nearest town-accepted street, which is about 840 feet north of the plaintiffs' property. The right of way to Shore Road is sixteen feet wide, of which nine feet are paved. On each side of this pavement the land is low, swampy brushland. The paved part of the road is not wide enough to permit two cars traveling in opposite directions to pass one another.
In 1920, a map showing a tract containing three lots was filed in the Waterford land records. The middle lot is now owned by the plaintiffs. On the lots to the east and west of the plaintiffs' property are residences which are occupied by the owners.
When the plaintiffs purchased their property in 1946, there was no ordinance requiring lots for building purposes to abut accepted streets. In February, 1960, the town enacted an ordinance which prohibited the erection of any building and the issuance of any building permit for the erection of any building on any lot abutting an unaccepted highway or street. This ordinance provides that the zoning and planning commission may--solely with respect to a parcel of land where, owing to conditions especially affecting that parcel but not affecting generally the district in which it is situated, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship, so that substantial justice will be done and the public safety and welfare secured--very the application of the ordinance and authorize the issuance of a building permit for a building on a lot which does not abut an accepted highway or street, if (1) the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning and subdivision regulations, due consideration being given to the conservation of the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare, and property values; (2) the parcel is in a layout or subdivision recorded in the office of the town clerk prior to the adoption of the Planning Enabling Act by the town of Waterford on September 29, 1947; and (3) the commission finds it is not desirable or feasible to lay out a public highway abutting the tract on which the building is proposed to be built. In February, 1960, the plaintiffs applied to the zoning and planning commission for a variance under the ordinance to permit the construction of a dwelling on their land. The application was denied. Subsequently, in November, 1960, they applied to the defendant building inspector for a permit to erect a single-family, detached dwelling. The building inspector denied the application on the ground that the property does not abut an accepted street. The town requires, before a street can be accepted, that it be fifty feet in width and not less than thirty-four feet of its width be oiled. The zoning regulations of Waterford limit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verrillo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Branford
...It cited Brecciaroli v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 168 Conn. 349, 356, 362 A.2d 948 (1975), and Horwitz v. Waterford, 151 Conn. 320, 323-24, 197 A.2d 636 (1964), for the proposition that "[s]hort of regulation which finally restricts the use of property for any reasonable pur......
-
Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc.
...landowner. Brecciaroli v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, [168 Conn. 349, 356, 362 A.2d 948 (1975) ]; Horwitz v. Waterford, [151 Conn. 320, 323-24, 197 A.2d 636 (1964) ]. The financial effect on a particular owner must be balanced against the health, safety and welfare of the comm......
-
Verrillo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Branford
...It cited Brecciaroli v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 168 Conn. 349, 356, 362 A.2d 948 (1975), and Horwitz v. Waterford, 151 Conn. 320, 323–24, 197 A.2d 636 (1964), for the proposition that “[s]hort of regulation which finally restricts the use of property for any reasonable pur......
-
Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc.
...in a general sense but may be unreasonable and confiscatory as applied to a particular parcel of property. See, Horwitz v. Town of Waterford, 151 Conn. 320, 197 A.2d 636 (1964); White v. City of Twin Falls, 81 Idaho 176, 338 P.2d 778 (1959); Board of Zoning Appeals of New Albany v. Koehler,......
-
Connecticut's New Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure: Assaulting the Presumptive Validity of Land Use Decisions
...365 387 (1926). 42. Wade v. Town Plan & Zoning Comm., 145 Conn. 592,594,145 A.2d 597,599 (1958) Horwitz v. Waterford 151 Conn. 320, 323, 197 A.2d 636, 637-38 43. CoNN. GEN. STAT. 8-2 (1991) 44. State v. Hillman, 110 Conn. 4, 105, 147 A. 294, 299 (1929) (the limit of the exercise of the poli......