Corvino v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Connecticut Superior Court

Corvino v. Zoning Board of Appeals

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 15, 7 Conn. Supp. 15, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 8

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1939

DocketFile 55480

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 15 (Corvino v. Zoning Board of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Corvino v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 15, 7 Conn. Supp. 15, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 8 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLS, J.

Alfonse Corvino owns a house located at 456 Middletown Avenue and has a two-car garage in the rear of the premises. The zoning is “Residence B.” He desires to conduct the business of repairing and greasing cars in this garage. Being forbidden to do so by the zoning laws, he applied to the Board of Aldermen for a change in the law and was refused; then he applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for permission to repair and grease cars. The vote denying the application was unanimous.

He then appealed to this court. The principal contention is that the board’s decision was based upon a mistake and misconception of the law.

Both the facts and the law support the conclusion reached.

“The power of authorizing variations from the general provisions of the statute (zoning ordinance) is designed to be. sparingly exercised. It is only in rare instances and under exceptional circumstances that relaxation of the general restrictions .... ought to be permitted. The power granted is only for the relief of specific instances, peculiar in their nature.... Disadvantage in property value or income, or both, to a single-owner of property, resulting from application of zoning re *16 strictions, does not, ordinarily, warrant relaxation in his favor on the ground of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.” Grady vs. Katz, 124 Conn. 525, 1 Atl. (2d) 137, 139.

Judgment is for the defendant, dismissing the appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ELLS, J.

Alfonse Corvino owns a house located at 456 Middletown Avenue and has a two-car garage in the rear of the premises. The zoning is “Residence B.” He desires to conduct the business of repairing and greasing cars in this garage. Being forbidden to do so by the zoning laws, he applied to the Board of Aldermen for a change in the law and was refused; then he applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for permission to repair and grease cars. The vote denying the application was unanimous.

He then appealed to this court. The principal contention is that the board’s decision was based upon a mistake and misconception of the law.

Both the facts and the law support the conclusion reached.

“The power of authorizing variations from the general provisions of the statute (zoning ordinance) is designed to be. sparingly exercised. It is only in rare instances and under exceptional circumstances that relaxation of the general restrictions .... ought to be permitted. The power granted is only for the relief of specific instances, peculiar in their nature.... Disadvantage in property value or income, or both, to a single-owner of property, resulting from application of zoning re *16 strictions, does not, ordinarily, warrant relaxation in his favor on the ground of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.” Grady vs. Katz, 124 Conn. 525, 1 Atl. (2d) 137, 139.

Judgment is for the defendant, dismissing the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 15, 7 Conn. Supp. 15, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corvino-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-connsuperct-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack