Rice v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals

Connecticut Superior Court

Rice v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 27

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 16, 1936

DocketFile No. 49534

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 27 (Rice v. Zoning Bd. 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

Rice v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 27 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

The issue here considered is whether a building containing many single rooms and used as a dormitory for the Roseblum School at Milford at the time zoning regulations were adopted can now be altered and made into a six-family house.

The regulations provide "no non-conforming use shall be extended so as to diminish the extent of a conforming use" *Page 28 The construction and use of a six-family house would, in my opinion, materially extend the non-conforming and diminish the extent of a conforming use.

The regulations provide "the cost of structural alterations made in such building shall in no case exceed fifty per cent of its assessed value". Although the owner testified his plans and specifications could be carried out within that limit, I find the fact to be quite to the contrary.

There is no indication that the Board of Zoning Appeals acted arbitrarily, illegally or unreasonably.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The issue here considered is whether a building containing many single rooms and used as a dormitory for the Roseblum School at Milford at the time zoning regulations were adopted can now be altered and made into a six-family house.

The regulations provide "no non-conforming use shall be extended so as to diminish the extent of a conforming use" *Page 28 The construction and use of a six-family house would, in my opinion, materially extend the non-conforming and diminish the extent of a conforming use.

The regulations provide "the cost of structural alterations made in such building shall in no case exceed fifty per cent of its assessed value". Although the owner testified his plans and specifications could be carried out within that limit, I find the fact to be quite to the contrary.

There is no indication that the Board of Zoning Appeals acted arbitrarily, illegally or unreasonably.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-zoning-bd-of-appeals-connsuperct-1936.