Rice v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Milford

Connecticut Superior Court

Rice v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Milford

4 Conn. Supp. 27, 122 Conn. 435, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 81

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided May 16, 1936·No. File #49534·Published

Opinion

ELLS, J.

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”. [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

ELLS, J.

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”. [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.

Rice v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Milford, 4 Conn. Supp. 27, 122 Conn. 435, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

4 Conn. Supp. 27 (Rice v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Milford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.