Jenkins v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Darien
| Decision Date | 01 March 1972 |
| Citation | 295 A.2d 556,162 Conn. 621 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | William E. JENKINS et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF DARIEN. |
Peter M. Ryan, Darien, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Warren W. Eginton, Stamford, with whom, on the brief, were Edward R. McPherson, Jr., and P. Hurley Bogardus, Stamford, for appellee (defendant).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and RYAN, SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, and FITZ GERALD, * JJ.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Common Pleas from a denial by the zoning board of appeals of the town of Darien of their application for a variance under the Darien zoning regulations. The court rendered judgment sustaining the action of the board and the plaintiffs have appealed from that judgment.
The plaintiffs, on December 9, 1968, acquired property on Outlook Drive in Darien, consisting of adjoining lots 54, 53 and part of 52, located in a residential zone requiring a minimum lot size of one-half acre. Lot 54, vacant land, consists of .303 of an acre and lot 53 together with part of lot 52, hereinafter called lot 53, on which stands a dwelling house, consists of .585 of an acre. The plaintiffs, on December 30, 1968, petitioned the board for a variance as to lot 54 under §§ 410 and 455 of the Darien zoning regulations. We need concern ourselves only with § 455 since, in their appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiffs abandoned their claim that the board improperly denied their request for a variance under § 410. 1 The variance sought was for the purpose of erecting a dwelling house on lot 54. 2
Following a public hearing, the board stated, in part, in its finding, that the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (a) of § 455 of the regulations in that they ; and that there 'is indication that construction of a dwelling on the first tract would aggravate an existing drainage problem and thus be injurious to the neighborhood.' On grounds consistent with these findings, the board denied the request for a variance. The board's action was sustained and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal. The court concluded that the board did not act illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion.
The court's functions were limited to a determination whether the board had, as alleged on the appeal, acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the discretion vested in it. Verney v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laurel Beach Assoc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Milford
...689, 447 A.2d 1172 (1982); Bankers Trust Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 165 Conn. 624, 345 A.2d 544 (1974); Jenkins v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 162 Conn. 621, 295 A.2d 556 (1972); Schultz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 144 Conn. 332; Miller v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 36 Conn. App. 98,......
-
Whittaker v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Trumbull
...abuse of its discretion. Bogue v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 165 Conn. 749, 752, 345 A.2d 9 (1974); see also Jenkins v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 162 Conn. 621, 623, 295 A.2d 556 (1972). Courts are not to substitute their judgment for that of the board; Koproski v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 162......
-
Halabi v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
...as alleged in the appeal, acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the discretion vested in him. Jenkins v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 162 Conn. 621, 623, 295 A.2d 556. See Taminski v. Administrator, 168 Conn. 324, 326, 362 A.2d 868. We, therefore, do not consider this issue. Practice Boo......
-
Tazza v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Westport
...of whether the board had acted illegally, arbitrarily or in abuse of the discretion vested in it. Jenkins v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 162 Conn. 621, 623, 295 A.2d 556; Verney v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 578, 580, 200 A.2d The present case was not a declaratory judgment ......