Willard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Hartford
| Decision Date | 15 December 1964 |
| Citation | 152 Conn. 247,206 A.2d 110 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Carolyn C. WILLARD v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the CITY OF HARTFORD. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
John B. Willard, West Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Joseph J. Burns, Asst. Corporation Counsel, for appellee (defendant).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, COMLEY, and SHANNON, JJ.
This appeal is from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from the action of the defendant in denying a variance.
On September 28, 1962, the plaintiff's predecessor in title and The Greater Hartford Tuberculosis and Public Health Society, a prospective tenant, filed with the defendant an application for a variance of § 38-4 of the Hartford zoning ordinance, concerning A-2 residence zones. The application sought permission to use the property located at 660 Prospect Avenue, Hartford, for offices and for the parking of six additional cars, making a total of nine cars for the use of office employees. After a public hearing on November 7, 1962, the defendant denied the application. The property is midway between Farmington Avenue and Cone Street. There are eleven buildings, all originally constructed for single-family residences. Six of these are licensed rooming houses which were in existence prior to the recodification of zoning in Hartford on October 8, 1945. Three other owners have been granted variances for commercial uses, including a use by The Society for Crippled Children and Adults similar to the one proposed here. There is but one property in the block, other than the plaintiff's, which conforms to the regulations for an A-2 residence zone. The owner of this other property, in a letter to the defendant, favored the granting of the plaintiff's application. No one appeared at the hearing in opposition, but an adjoining owner wrote a letter to the defendant in opposition. The plaintiff claimed that the property was unattractive for residence purposes and that she had sought unsuccessfully for one and a half years to secure a tenant.
It is true that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion and that the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Upon appeal, the trial court reviews the record before the board to determine whether it has acted fairly or with proper motives or upon valid reasons. Zieky v. Town Plan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stiles v. Town Council of Town of West Hartford
...of Appeals, 143 Conn. 211, 214, 120 A.2d 827; Tarasovic v. Zoning Commission, 147 Conn. 65, 71, 157 A.2d 103.' Willard v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 247, 248, 206 A.2d 110. 'In an appeal from a zoning board of appeals or a zoning commission, any portion of the record before the boar......
-
Whittaker v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Trumbull
...or with proper motives or upon valid reasons.... We, in turn, review the action of the trial court." Willard v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 247, 248-49, 206 A.2d 110, 111 (1964). See Krejpcio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 657, 662, 211 A.2d 687 (1965). The burden of proof to ......
-
Spero v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Guilford
...or with proper motives or upon valid reasons.... We, in turn, review the action of the trial court.' Willard v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 247, 248-49, 206 A.2d 110 (1964)." Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 703, 707, 535 A.2d 799 (1988). The burden of proof is on the ......
-
Adolphson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Fairfield
...or with proper motives or upon valid reasons.... We, in turn, review the action of the trial court." Willard v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 247, 248-49, 206 A.2d 110 (1964). "The burden of proof to demonstrate that the board acted improperly is upon the plaintiffs. Horvath v. Zoning ......