Rogers v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Orange

• Decision Date: 10 February 1967
• Citation: 227 A.2d 91,154 Conn. 484
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Frank W. ROGERS v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF ORANGE.

Page 91

227 A.2d 91

154 Conn. 484

Frank W. ROGERS v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF ORANGE.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Feb. 10, 1967.

Richard H. Bowerman, with whom was Richard K. Snyder, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).

Charles G. Albom, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

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

RYAN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff is the owner of a piece of land in the approximate shape of a rightangle triangle, which is 105 feet in width at its base. One side of the triangle is 1030 feet, and the hypotenuse is 1032 feet long. The 105-foot base is the widest part of the lot. The property has been in the plaintiff's family for many years. The plaintiff acquired it from his parents, who, in turn, acquired it from his maternal grandfather. The area of the land is sufficient to meet the minimun zoning requirements for the construction of a residence, but, because of the peculiar shape of the lot, if a residence were constructed, it would not be possible to meet the minimum zoning requirements as to sideyard, rear yard and front setback. In the district in which the land is located, the Orange zoning ordinance, in § 4.11, permits '(f)ree-standing one-family dwellings, farms and one-family farm dwellings, gardens, greenhouses that are part of farms, public utilities, municipal buildings, schools, churchs, libraries and other civic or governmental buildings, and buildings customarily accessory to any of the foregoing * * *.' Section 7.2 of the regulations provides: 'In Residence Districts no * * * structure shall be erected * * * fifty * * * feet from front line or rear line of any lot * * * or nearer than twenty-five * * * feet from either sideline of any lot.' The plaintiff applied to the defendant board for a fifteen-foot variance on the north side, a twenty-five-foot variance on the front, and a twenty-foot variance on the rear of the lot. The authority of the board to grant variances is covered by §§ 9.23 and 9.24 of the ordinance. ¹

At the public hearing, the plaintiff offered evidence that he wished to construct a one-family dwelling on the property and that this could not be done unless the variances requested were granted. The shape of the lot resulted from the taking, before World War II, of adjoining land of the plaintiff's predecessor in title for the construction of the Wilbur Cross Parkway.

Subsequent to the hearing, several members of the board visited the property. The board voted unanimously to deny the petition because 'the granting of this variance would not substantially serve the public convenience and welfare, would not be in accordance with the lawful intents and purposes of the Town of Orange Zoning Ordinance and (the board) further felt that this piece of property is not a suitable building lot.' The plaintiff appealed from the board's decision to the Court of Common Pleas, which rendered judgment dismissing the appeal and sustaining the board's decision. From that judgment, the plaintiff has appealed on the ground that the board acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion in that there is no practical use of this land whatsoever unless the variance requested is granted. 'The power to grant a variance in the application of established zoning regulations should be exercised charily. Piccirillo v. Board of Appeals on Zoning, 139 Conn. 116, 120, 90 A.2d 647. The obvious reason is that unless great caution is used and variances are granted only in proper cases, the whole fabric of town-and city-wide zoning will be worn through in spots and raveled at the edges until its purpose in protecting the property values and securing the orderly development of the community is completely thwarted. Gunther v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 136 Conn. 303, 309, 71 A.2d 91; Devaney v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 132 Conn. 537, 540, 45 A.2d 828; Grady v. Katz, 124 Conn. 525, 529, 1 A.2d 137.' Heady v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 139 Conn. 463, 467, 94 A.2d 789, 791. The reasons given by the board indicate that the requirements of the ordinance were fully considered. In finding that the property was not a suitable building lot, the board was entitled to consider whether or not its use would involve dangers to health or safety. The obvious purpose of yard requirements and setback lines is to prevent fire hazards, provide for proper drainage and make suitable provision for light and air. The plaintiff sought to vary the front yard setback from fifty feet to twenty-five feet, the rear yard from fifty feet to thirty feet, and the sideyard from twenty-five to ten feet. This would be a rather substantial variance. The peculiar shape of the lot and the problems connected therewith were not created by the zoning ordinance but by the condemnation of the abutting land owned by the plaintiff's grandfather. 'A variance should not be granted unless it is in harmony with the general purpose and...