Court Opinion

ID: 9713023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:05:23.227681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:15.876322
License: Public Domain

D. Shea, J.
(dissenting). I disagree. The issue presented by this case is essentially a factual one— whether the use of the plaintiff’s property for overnight lodging for its members, without restriction to weekends and religious holidays, is an accessory use to its permitted use as a “church or other place of worship.” Under the zoning regulations an accessory use must be “customary with and subordinate to” the principal use and it must also be located on the same lot. There is no serious question but that the use sought by the plaintiff is incidental or “subordinate to” the principal use of the property as a synagogue, and that it is on the same lot. I do not agree, however, that the board of appeals was bound to conclude from the evidence presented at the hearing that providing lodging for members without limitation was “customary with” the principal use.
The fact that providing overnight accommodations may be a part of the religious tradition of the plaintiff or that the denial of the privilege would impose *454some hardship upon it would not render such a use “customary.” This word in an accessory use provision requires the court “to determine whether it is usual to maintain the use in question with the primary use of the land.” Lawrence v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 158 Conn. 509, 512, 264 A.2d 552 (1969). The evidence was that only five synagogues in the state provided any overnight accommodations and that these were limited to weekend use. The hoard may well have relied upon this evidence in deciding that such lodging on weekends or holidays was “customary,” but that the unlimited use sought by the plaintiff was “truly unique or rare,” as stated by one of its members. For a use to qualify as accessory to a principal use the incidence of that use in conjunction with the similar principal uses of other properties must be “more than unique or rare.” Lawrence v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 513. It was not unreasonable or arbitrary for the board to have found that the evidence did not establish that providing overnight lodging for members without restriction was usual or customary for a synagogue. The board properly concluded that the unrestricted use requested by the plaintiff was so extraordinary in extent that it could not be regarded as an accessory use and that it should more appropriately be the subject of a special exception for a religious institution where the suitability of the property for such a use could be examined under the applicable standards pertaining to the adequacy of water, sewage and parking facilities as well as fire and police protection. The effect of the decision of the majority is to preclude any such inquiry.
The suggestion in the majority opinion that churches or places of worship are shrouded in a *455“cloak of immunity” from the operation of the zoning regulations is not consistent with previous decisions of this court. St. John’s Roman Catholic Church Corporation v. Darien, 149 Conn. 712, 724, 184 A.2d 42 (1962); West Hartford Methodist Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 143 Conn. 263, 121 A.2d 640 (1956). To the extent that this implication of the majority has constitutional overtones and also in respect to the constitutional issues raised by the plaintiff, the administrative remedy of applying for a special exception should be exhausted before judicial consideration of such matters would be warranted. Florentine v. Darien, 142 Conn. 415, 428.
The explanation of the various considerations which induced each of the three majority members of the board to vote as they did ought not to be treated as the equivalent of a formal statement of the reasons for the action of the board. See DeMaria v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 159 Conn. 534, 540, 271 A.2d 105 (1970). “These individual views are not available to show the reason for, or the ground of, the board’s decision.” Welch v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 158 Conn. 208, 214, 257 A.2d 795 (1969). Such reasons “can only be shown by the vote of the board.” Thayer v. Board of Appeals, 114 Conn. 15, 20, 157 A. 273 (1931). The only vote taken was upon the question of whether unrestricted overnight lodging constituted an accessory use to the principal use of the property as a synagogue.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.