Home/Supreme Court of Connecticut/Cowles v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Cowles v. Zoning Board of Appeals

214 A.2d 361, 153 Conn. 116, 1965 Conn. LEXIS 407
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedOctober 28, 1965
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 214 A.2d 361 (Cowles v. Zoning Board of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cowles v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 214 A.2d 361, 153 Conn. 116, 1965 Conn. LEXIS 407 (Colo. 1965).

Opinion

Murphy, J.

Maxwell L. Miller conducts a retail drugstore in a business zone 1 in Manchester. The sale of alcoholic liquor is prohibited in that zone. The defendant zoning board of appeals, on November 18, 1963, granted Miller’s application for a variance to permit the retail sale of alcoholic liquor in his drugstore. The plaintiff, a nearby resident and taxpayer, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed the appeal. This appeal followed.

The plaintiff, as a taxpayer, is an aggrieved person in a case in which traffic in liquor is involved without having to show that he has an interest peculiar to himself. Tyler v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 145 Conn. 655, 660, 145 A.2d 832. As such, he can prosecute his appeal.

The board gave as its reason for granting the variance: “There will be no liquor display and it will be limited to a confined area. Unique hardship because its [sic] isolated from business area.” The first reason makes no sense. If there is to be no display, it is difficult to understand how it could be limited to a confined area. The zoning regulations in Manchester make no provision for a variance for a “unique hardship.” Prom the record of the hearing before the board, Miller considers his situation unique in that “it’s the only drugstore in Town thats [sic] situated all by itself, or doesn’t have the sale of liquor to complement and integrate its sales as a drug store.” He is disappointed that the business area in which he located his store nine years before has not grown into the neighborhood shopping center which was then envisaged. At most *118 that would be an economic hardship, and we have repeatedly held that snch a hardship as well as disappointment in the use of the property is not sufficient for a variance. Krejpcio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 657, 662, 211 A.2d 687, and cases cited. The trial court should have sustained the appeal.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the ease is remanded with direction to sustain the appeal.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Related

Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals
887 A.2d 442 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2006)
Alliance Energy Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Board
815 A.2d 105 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2003)
Coco v. Haddad, No. Cv 00 0340756 (Apr. 30, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5741-dd (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
West Norwalk Assn. v. Zoning Comm., No. Cv 98 01066143 S (Jun. 17, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 7211 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Loulis v. Liquor Control Commission, No. 320627 (Jul. 8, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12455 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
676 A.2d 831 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996)
Jolly Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. 94 031 10 34 (Oct. 12, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 10427 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Bloom v. Zon. Bd. of Appeals, Norwalk, No. Cv 93-0303191 (Feb. 23, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 1901 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Estate of Filipek v. Zon. Bd. of App., No. Cv-92-0454234 (Dec. 27, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 11115 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)
Alclair, Inc. v. Zon. Bd. of Appeals, No. Cv91 028 60 04 (May 29, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4783 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Zaletta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv91- 0283883s (Mar. 25, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2779 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Manousos v. Wethersfield Zoning Bd. of App., No. 383865 (Jul. 29, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 6045 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)
Spencer v. Zoning Board of Appeals
544 A.2d 676 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Edelson v. Zoning Commission
481 A.2d 421 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1984)
Hartford Distributors, Inc. v. Liquor Control Commission
419 A.2d 346 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
MacAluso v. Zoning Board of Appeals
356 A.2d 885 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Dolan v. Zoning Board of Appeals
242 A.2d 713 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1968)
M. & R. ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
231 A.2d 272 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 A.2d 361, 153 Conn. 116, 1965 Conn. LEXIS 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowles-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-conn-1965.