The Waterbury Democrat., 1945-02-16

The United States Time Corpora tion has appealed to the board of zoning appeals of the Town of Mid- dlebury to reverse the recent deci- sions of both the zoning commis- sion and the building inspector of the Town whereby the request of the company to construct a second- story addition to its Middlebury plant, was denied.
 The company in its request seeks reversal of the decisions on the claim that the Zoning commission and the building inspector both "erred in holding that 1t was not within (their) power to grant said petition"
 The company seeks to construct a second-Story addition approximately 13S feet wide and 386 feet long com priSed of approximately 42,700 gross square feet of floor space, costing $250, 900 to $300,000.
 The company's application for appeal has been presented by At- torney William w. Gager acting in behalf of the attorney and secretary of the company Edward B. Carmody who has disqualified himself as at torney to appear as a witness for the corporation.
 Request Denied
 AS reported previously the zon- ing commission of Middlebury through its chairman, Rev. William w. Baxter notified the company that its request to construct had been denied following a meeting of December 26. At that time the com mission declared the proposed build ing plan to be "non-conforming" to the Section TX of the Middlebury Zoning ordinance.
 Previously, the Middlebury Build ing Inspector F. P. Lawlor informed MT. Carmody in reply to a letter from J. M. Ivory, vice-president of the concern that he was denying their petition for the same reasons.
 In its appeal the U. s. Time au- thorities cite the fact that the ord- finance referred to was not in exist ence at the time the present plant was constructed in Middlebury, and requests that such restrictions be waived to permit the addition.
 In its application for appeal the company requests the following of the board of zoning appeals:
 q. Permit the extension of the company's plant upon the lot occu- pied by such plant at the time of the passage of the ordinance as such extension and completion was sought and described in Exhibit A. hereof; and
 "2. If the use specified in section s of said exhibit A is an unallowed nonconforming use, permit the ex- tension of said nonconforming use to the extent specified in said sec tion 6 of said Exhibit A; and
 8. Direct the building inspector to issue the permit and authorize tion necessary to enable the com- pany to go forward with the con- struction of the herein proposed extension and completion Of its building. as sought by the company In its petition to said building in- spector (exhibit c; or
 A. Authorize and permit the company directly to proceed with it's proposed extension and completion of its building and to engage in the use thereof, as sought by the com- pany in Exhibit A; and
 5. Vary the siX-months require ment specified in Section XIII, sub section 2 of said ordinance eff In fact the company shall, because of war time conditions, be lawfully and practically unable to proceed within that length of time after receiving the authority or permission which may be granted 1t pursuant to its requests in parts A-III or A-IV hereoO by directing that said six months period shall begin to run from the date upon which the com pany shall be lawfully and practice ally able to proceed with the exten- sion and completion of its said plant.
 B. On appeal of the company and by virtue of the appellate powers vested in the board of appeals to re- view, modify or reverse the trder, requirement. or decision of the zon- ing commission or the building in- spector, viz:
 l. Reverse the zoning commis- sion'S denial Of the company's peti- ton (exhibit BO: and
 "2. Reverse the building inSpec-