The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-06-27


 a newly created zone boundary line divides a lot and in that case a use permitted on either portion may be authorized but not more than 25 feet beyond the boundary line of the zone in which the use Is au- th0rized. Or the erection of an ad- ditional building might be permit ted if 1t can be shown that 8 busi- ness or industrial establishment suffers practical or unnecessary hardShipS from strict enforcement of the zoning laws, but in this case the additional building can be al- lowed only on lot occupied at the time the ordinance was passed. A third instance where a variance may be ruled is in 8 case where the public health, safety, or welfare can be benefited. The court ruled that none of these factors applied in the Wales street case.
 The lot under consideration has a frontage on East Main street of 59.99 and a depth Southerly along the east side of Wales street of 1S9.45. The jurist pointed out that the portion 30 by 100 feet should be considered a corner lot and the remainder of the land as an in terior lot, and he ruled that the zoning line in reality does not de- vide the lots but bounds them. He added that If it could be proved that the building needed space be- yond the 100 feet allowed in the zone for its necessary use then it might be found that the zone line divided the lot and recourse taken, but he held that was not so in this case. The board mistook the whole tract of land to be one lot, he said.
 Since the building to which the addition was made was built in 1885 and the zonillg ordinace was set up September 2S, 1928, Judge Cornell ruled that no consideration could be given to arguments concerning didlculties or hardships created by the law.
 He denied that financial hard ship had been created, stating "the mere fact that unless increased space desired by a tenant is fur- nished 1t will vacate the premises it leases does not of necessity in1- ply either 8 financial loss or detri- ment especially when as here the retention Of such 8 tenant involves an additional investment of about $l2yO00." The addition to the build- ing was requested by the First Na- tion company which claimed that it needed more space to conduct its business. Its store had occupied the building for 8 number of years.
 The defense failed to prove that variance had been made for reasons of public health, safety or welfare, the judge stated in his finding. He said that public safety in reality had not been benefited but hind cred because of trafiic congestion which leads to acute fire danger. He pointed out that the "Cash-and- Garry" principle of the super market has drawn large crowds, thereby increaSin gtrafflc. The in- troduction of more truck traffic also has hindered the situation, he said. The erection of the building has re- moved the lot parking space pre- viously available, he added.
 Referring to statements that the erection would be an Improvement to the community, Judge Cornell said that even if the addition im- proved the buildings appearance as claimed, relaxation of the zoning law could not be allowed because the purposes of the law would be violated.
 The decision states that the &C., ton of the zoning board in permit ting the variance had the effect of an amendment to the zoning regu- lation, and added that not even an amendment could be sustained which did not have a rational re-