Court Opinion

ID: 9719421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:52:09.396891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.085388
License: Public Domain

Quixlax, J.
(dissenting). I cannot disagree with the basic principles cited in the majority opinion with reference to the limitations upon the power of this court in the review of an administrative decision, but I dispute the manner of their application by my associates to the situation before us. The case is a typical illustration of a problem confronting municipalities where zoning ordinances were adopted twenty-five years ago and have not been followed by a thorough resurvey and by amendment. Apparently the board has taken refuge in a feeling of security that its actions would not be considered an abuse of its powers and that the hardship found by it was sufficient in law. In reality, what has been *444done, especially since it pertains to a nonconforming use, is legislation and an arrogation of the powers of the zoning commission of the city of New Haven.
If the variance is to be justified at all, it must be by the invocation of the power granted by subdivision (7) of § 1033 of the New Haven zoning ordinance. Gunther v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 136 Conn. 303, 309, 71 A.2d 91. This section authorizes the granting of a variance in cases of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the ordinance. The conclusion that to deny the application would involve a hardship to Cott rests upon the individual inconvenience to Cott with a stressing of the economic disadvantage. The ordinance provides that a variance must be “in harmony with its general purpose and intent so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done.” We have repeatedly held that there would be no occasion for a zoning law if financial considerations were to control the action of a board in granting a variance. Misuk v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 138 Conn. 477, 481, 86 A.2d 180; Devaney v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 132 Conn. 537, 542, 45 A.2d 828; Thayer v. Board of Appeals, 114 Conn. 15, 23, 157 A. 273. Neither can increased inconvenience to Cott be considered material. Rommell v. Walsh, 127 Conn. 272, 277, 16 A.2d 483. This is not a case where zoning practically destroys the value of the property for any permitted use, nor does it amount to confiscation. Devaney v. Board of Zoning Appeals, supra. The truth is that the Cott business site was acquired as a nonconforming use. The area to which this action appertains was purchased with the knowledge that a part of it was in a business zone and a part in residence B zone *445and conld not be used for tbe purposes now sought. In fact, the Cott plant has outgrown its location and has expanded from a $200,000 to a $1,000,000 business, and whatever hardship there may be upon Cott results from this growth rather than from the enactment of the zoning ordinance. In other words, it is a change in Cott’s condition which has created the hardship rather than the provision of the ordinance. This is not. sufficient. Misuk v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra; Celentano v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 136 Conn. 584, 587, 73 A.2d 101; Piccolo v. West Haven, 120 Conn. 449, 455, 181 A. 615; Greenwich Gas Co. v. Tuthill, 113 Conn. 684, 694, 155 A. 850. Incidentally, any traffic situation that Cott complains of is more a creation of Cott’s than from normal highway traffic and concerns the internal yard movement of Cott rather than the movements of the public.
Not only is the granting of the variance unwarranted because no hardship exists but it is prohibited because it is not “in harmony with [the] general purpose and intent” of the zoning ordinance. It is of the essence of the purpose and intent of the ordinance as a whole to reduce and ultimately extinguish nonconforming uses rather than extend them. Piccolo v. West Haven, supra, 453; Chudnov v. Board of Appeals, 113 Conn. 49, 57, 154 A. 161. The granting of this petition would result in enlarging the scope of the nonconforming industrial use now enjoyed by Cott rather than in reducing the use to conformity. It is my opinion that the action of the board in granting the petition abused a reasonable discretion and that its decision was based upon a mistake or misconception of the law in the construction of § 1033(7) as to hardship and therefore was illegal. Furthermore, the variance granted is contrary to the provisions of § 1033(7) in that it would not be “in harmony with *446[the] general purpose and intent [of the ordinance] so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done.”
I believe there was error and that the judgment should be set aside and the case remanded with direction.
In this opinion Inglis, C. J., concurred.