[DOWNLOAD] "Strain v. Zoning Board of Appeals" by Supreme Court of Connecticut # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Strain v. Zoning Board of Appeals
- Author : Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 20, 1950
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
The plaintiffs are the owners of land at the corner of Round Hill and Old Mill Roads in Greenwich, where they have been conducting for some time past a gasoline filling station, automobile repair business and general store. Their property is located in what is described under the building Zone regulations of the town of Greenwich as a local business (B-L) zone. They made an application in writing to the Zoning board of appeals requesting authorization to erect an addition to the existing buildings to be used in connection with repairing automobiles. The pertinent section of the regulations, article II, 5, subsection A, item 4, reads as follows: ""Permitted uses. . . . Automobile sales rooms, gasoline filling stations and garages for the storage or repair of more than five (5) motor vehicles and parking lots, when authorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals and subject to the provisions of Article IV, Section 5 and to such limitations on outside storage and repair of motor vehicles as are prescribed by the Board of Appeals."" After a hearing the board denied the application upon the ground that the granting of it would aggravate an unsightly and noisy condition and that the denial of it would be in accord with the public interest and the appropriate development of the neighborhood and in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning regulations. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The court sustained the appeal and held that the provisions of the Zoning ordinance under which the board of appeals purported to act were unconstitutional and void because they did not contain any rule or standard to guide or restrain the discretion of the board, nor any comprehensive plan for uniformity, and, therefore, were illegal and improper delegations of legislative power. The sole question presented on the defendants' appeal to this court is the correctness of the trial court's ruling on that issue.