## Facts

- Pickwick Ice Cream Company operated an ice-cream manufacturing plant in Stamford, Connecticut.
- In 1951, the property was rezoned from industrial to a commercial neighborhood zone, making the plant a lawful nonconforming use.
- In January 1959, Mortimer Perry, the company’s president, brought a large trailer onto the property, insulated and equipped it, and connected it by hose and piping to the plant’s ammonia refrigeration system.
- The trailer was maintained at freezing temperature and used for storage of materials related to ice-cream production.
- Although the trailer could be moved and was technically roadworthy, it remained on the premises and stayed continuously connected to the plant’s system; it was not permanently registered as a motor vehicle.
- Stamford’s zoning enforcement officer sent Perry a written request in February 1959 to discontinue use of the trailer as part of the operation.
- After Perry did not comply, the State charged him with violating zoning regulations that allowed continuation of nonconforming uses but prohibited their extension or expansion.
- The Court of Common Pleas, sitting without a jury, found Perry guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; he appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether installing and using a continuously connected refrigerated trailer for freezing and storage constituted an impermissible extension or expansion of a lawful nonconforming use under Stamford’s zoning regulations.
2. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the trailer’s placement and use for freezing and storing materials in the ice-cream operation extended the nonconforming industrial use in a commercial zone.
- The court concluded the trial court could reasonably find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the trailer functioned as added cold-storage capacity and therefore violated the prohibition on extending or expanding nonconforming uses.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful nonconforming use may continue as it existed when zoning changed, but it may not be extended or expanded where regulations so provide.
- Zoning policy disfavors growth of nonconforming uses and seeks their eventual elimination as quickly as justice permits.
- Courts assess the functional reality and effect of an addition to a use, not merely its formal label; a moveable unit may be treated as a facility expansion if it operates as part of the nonconforming enterprise.
- An owner may not achieve indirectly (through devices or arrangements) what zoning regulations would forbid directly (such as increasing the scope or capacity of the nonconforming operation).

## Conclusion

By installing a refrigerated trailer that remained in place, was continuously integrated into the plant’s ammonia system, and increased freezing and storage capacity, the defendant expanded a lawful nonconforming industrial use in violation of Stamford’s zoning regulations, and the conviction was properly affirmed.


State v. Perry, 149 Conn. 232, 178 A.2d 279 (1962)