Since the named defendant made no attempt to establish that the operation of the zoning ordinance created any hardship peculiarly affecting the property for which he sought a variance, and the reasons recited by the defendant zoning board of appeals for granting the variance included no element of hardship but related only matters inadequate to support its action, the trial court should have sustained the plaintiffs' appeal.
ALCORN, J.
Robert Idarola owned property in East Haven in a residence zone which required a minimum lot area of 7200 square feet per family. The lot contained 19,000 square feet. He applied to the zoning board of appeals for a variance to permit him to construct an apartment house to accommodate twenty families, which, under the regulations, would require a lot containing 144,000 square feet. The zoning board of appeals granted the variance, giving as its only reasons: "Best possible use of land. Building as proposed best suited for property. Will enhance the neighborhood." The plaintiffs, owners of adjacent property, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which found them to be aggrieved but rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. The present appeal is from that judgment.
The board of appeals is empowered to vary the application of the zoning regulations "where owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel but not affecting generally the district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of these regulations would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship." East Haven Zoning Regs., art. 11 3(c) (1957). It was Idarola's burden to establish a hardship peculiarly affecting his property through the operation of the zoning ordinance. Ward v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 141, 143, 215 A.2d 104. The record in the present case is completely devoid of any attempt by Idarola to establish any hardship whatever. The board in its decision found no hardship, and none of the reasons given by the board was adequate to support its action.