State v. Perry
178 A.2d 279, 149 Conn. 232, 1962 Conn. LEXIS 168 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pre-existing, nonconforming use of property may not be expanded by adding a mobile or semi-permanent structure that functions as an extension of the business operations, as this constitutes an illegal extension of that use under zoning regulations designed to eliminate such uses over time.
Facts:
- The Pickwick Ice Cream Company operated on its property in Stamford for over twenty-five years, during which time the area was zoned as industrial.
- In 1951, the property was rezoned to a commercial neighborhood zone, which rendered the company's industrial operations a legal nonconforming use.
- In January 1959, the defendant, the company's president, brought a large, roadworthy trailer to the property.
- The trailer was insulated, equipped with a refrigeration unit, and connected to the main manufacturing plant's ammonia cooling system via pipes and a hose.
- It was used continuously as a freezer to store materials for ice cream production.
- Although movable, the trailer remained stationary on the premises and was constantly connected to the plant, even after its temporary motor vehicle registration expired.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, H. B. Angel Smedley, was charged in a Stamford trial court with violating local zoning regulations.
- After a trial to the court (a bench trial), the defendant was found guilty.
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does parking a large, refrigerated trailer on a property and connecting it to the main plant for storage constitute an illegal extension or expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming industrial use in a commercial zone?
Opinions:
Majority - Shea, J.
Yes. Using a trailer to provide additional enclosed space for freezing and storage constitutes an illegal extension of a nonconforming use. The purpose of zoning regulations is to gradually eliminate nonconforming uses, not to permit their expansion. The defendant could not have legally built an addition to the existing building for these purposes, and using the trailer is an indirect attempt to do what is directly prohibited. The trailer's physical characteristics, location, and long-term, continuous connection to the plant demonstrate that it was intended, designed, and arranged to expand the nonconforming use, which is a clear violation of the zoning regulation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that an illegal "extension" of a nonconforming use is not limited to the construction of permanent structures. The court establishes that using semi-permanent or even mobile structures to expand the operational capacity on a piece of land can be deemed an illegal expansion. This precedent makes it more difficult for property owners to circumvent zoning restrictions by using nominally temporary structures to perform functions that would otherwise require new, prohibited construction, thereby strengthening the power of municipalities to phase out nonconforming uses.
