Stapleton v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Bridgeport

• Citation: 183 A.2d 750,149 Conn. 706
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 27 July 1962
• Parties: James F. STAPLETON et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the CITY OF BRIDGEPORT et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 750

183 A.2d 750

149 Conn. 706

James F. STAPLETON et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the CITY OF BRIDGEPORT et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 27, 1962.

Richard I. Steiber, Bridgeport, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Alfred R. Belinkie, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Paul L. Blawie, Bridgeport, for appellees (defendants Lombardo); with him also were John J. McGuinness, Bridgeport, and, on the brief Hugh C. Curran, Bridgeport, for appellee (named defendant).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

BALDWIN, Chief Justice.

The hearing before the zoning board of appeals showed the following: For twentysix years, the defendants Lombardo have operated a restaurant with a full liquor restaurant permit at 295-297 Wood Avenue, Bridgeport. Their lease expired. Their landlord was willing to renew the lease, excluding a garage and a yard, but only for a three-year term at an increased rental and an estimated expense of $500 for certain alterations. The Lombardos felt that they could not accept the proposed lease and operate their business so as to make a decent living. They considered the term too short and the rental too high. Seeking a way out of their problem, they entered into a contract to purchase premises at 253-259 Wood Avenue and intend to move their business there. These premises are on the same side of Wood Avenue as the Lombardos' present location and about 200 to 250 feet from it. Both locations are in a business zone where a restaurant with a full liquor permit is a permissible use under the Bridgeport zoning regulations.

These regulations provide, however, that no premises shall be used for the sale of alcoholic liquor under any tavern, restaurant, druggist or all-alcoholic liquor package store permit if the entrance to them is within 1500 feet in any direction from the entrance to any other premises used for the sale of alcoholic liquor under any such permit. Bridgeport Zoning Regs., c. 14, § 2 (Feb. 10, 1958). Both locations on Wood Avenue are within 1500 feet of other liquor outlets of the kind specified in the 1500-foot regulation. On April 25, 1960, the Lombardos applied to the zoning board of appeals for a variance of the regulation to permit the use of the premises at 253-259 Wood Avenue as a restaurant with a liquor permit. On the granting of the variance, they intended to apply to the liquor control commission for the approval of the removal of their business to the new location. The board granted the variance, but from that action the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. It dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs thereupon brought the present appeal.

We have held many times that financial hardship alone is not sufficient reason for granting a variance from the application of a zoning regulation. 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; Rafala v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 142, 145, 62 A.2d 337. There is an exception to this rule where the application of a zoning regulation bears so little relationship to the purposes of zoning that, as to the property in question, the regulation is, in effect, confiscatory or arbitrary. Libby v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 143 Conn. 46, 51, 118 A.2d 894. That is not the situation in the case before us. While the board of appeals assigned no reason for its action, the only reason which it could have given was financial hardship. That would be insufficient to support the action taken by the board of appeals. The plaintiffs' appeal should have been sustained.

In brief and argument in this court, the parties discussed the effect of General Statutes § 30-52, which, before it was amended in 1961, provided that, notwithstanding a zoning regulation prescribing minimum distances between liquor outlets, the liquor control commission 'in cases of hardship caused by reason of the commencement of an eviction action' against a permittee, could approve the removal of the permit 'from one building or place in any zone to another building or place in a proper business or industrial zone,' not more than 500 feet from the former location. Since no action for an eviction had...