Court Opinion

ID: 9759646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:23:46.437212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:03.892095
License: Public Domain

Murphy, J.
(dissenting). I am obliged to dissent from the majority opinion because the record does not show any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship with respect to these properties that would warrant a variance. In the absence of any depth to the commercial zone that was attempted to be established on West Main Street in 1950, that action would appear to be a nullity. State v. Huntington, 145 Conn. 394, 400, 143 A.2d 444. If this is so, a portion of the subject properties was not changed to a commercial zone in 1950, and the balance would not be fronting on a commercial zone. Therefore two of the reasons advanced by the zoning board of appeals for granting the variance would fall. The other reasons are insufficient to warrant the change.
I feel that the appeal should be sustained.