Opinion
Argued April 8, 1959
Decided April 10, 1959
Appeal from the action of the defendant in denying an application for a variance to permit the continued location of a swimming pool on the plaintiffs' property, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County and tried to the court, FitzGerald, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. No error.
Robert B. Seidman, with whom, on the brief, was Sidney Vogel, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
George F. Carroll, Jr., for the appellee (defendant).
On the plaintiffs' own statement of facts, it is clear that any hardship in requiring the plaintiffs to relocate the swimming pool on their property to comply with the regulations affecting the location of structures in residence zones was of the plaintiffs' own making. Accordingly, the zoning board of appeals quite properly denied the variance sought. Misuk v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 138 Conn. 477, 481, 86 A.2d 180; Wil-Nor Corporation v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 27, 31, 147 A.2d 197. The judgment dismissing the appeal from the denial of the variance was correct.