Nielsen v. Bd. of Appeals on Zoning of City of Bridgeport

Citation27 A.2d 392
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Decision Date16 July 1942
PartiesNIELSEN et als v. BOARD OF APPEALS ON ZONING OF CITY OF BRIDGEPORT et als.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Inglis, Judge.

Action by Christian Nielsen and others against the Board of Appeals on Zoning of the City of Bridgeport and others, wherein an appeal from the granting of a waiver of zoning regulations to permit certain persons to use their premises for dispensing alcoholic beverages was brought to the superior court and tried to the court. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.

No error.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

John T. Cullinan, Albert L. Coles, and James O'Connell, all of Bridgeport, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Frank L. Wilder and Morton Weiss, both of Bridgeport, for appellees (defendants Bridgeport Atlantic Stores, Inc., et al.).

Harry Schwartz and John V. Donnelly, both of Bridgeport, appellee (named defendant).

AVERY, Judge.

The city of Bridgeport has a zoning regulation which provides that "no building or premises shall be used * * * for the sale of alcoholic liquor * * * if any entrance to such building or premises shall be within fifteen hundred feet in a direct line from the entrance to any other building or premises which shall be used for the sale of alcoholic liquor under any tavern, restaurant, druggist or all alcoholic liquor package store permit."

On March 7, 1941, William Poulos and Thomas Laliotis made application to the board of appeals on zoning of the city of Bridgeport to "vary the fifteen hundred feet zoning restriction for purposes of obtaining full restaurant liquor permit" for premises at 699 Water Street. A hearing was had on that application on March 19, 1941, and the application was granted. This appeal was taken by three other liquor permittees within the restricted district who were residents and taxpayers of the city. Section 132e of the General Statutes, Cumulative Supplement 1939, provides, among other things:

"Whenever a zoning authority or a board of appeals shall make any change in a zoning regulation or the boundaries of a zoning district, it shall state upon its records the reason why such change is made." The reason for the granting of the application was not set forth in its vote by the board of appeals on zoning. The plaintiffs claim that the failure to comply with this statutory provision invalidated the action of the board. The statutory provision is couched in affirmative terms and not negative. It prescribes what shall be done by the board, but it does not in terms make invalid their action upon failure to comply with the statute. While it is the duty of boards of appeal to comply with the statute, it is true "that neither negative nor prohibitive language appears in the act; and that there is nothing contained in it which is naturally expressive of an intention to make compliance a condition precedent to action, or to thereby create a limitation of power." Spencer's Appeal, 78 Conn. 301, 304, 61 A. 1010, 1011. Failure to comply with the statute did not invalidate the action of the board. Gallup v. Smith, 59 Conn. 354, 358, 22 A. 334, 12 L.R.A. 353; Morey v. Hoyt, 65 Conn. 516, 524, 33 A. 496; Leete v. Anderson, 83 Conn. 227, 230, 76 A. 466; Daly v. Fisk, 104 Conn. 579, 583, 134 A. 169.

At the hearing before the board of appeals on zoning a competent stenographer was present and a record was taken of the proceedings, a copy of which was made by the trial court a part of the finding and is printed in the record on the appeal before us. It appears that Poulos and Laliotis had conducted a restaurant with a liquor permit at the corner of Main and Congress Streets; and that, less than two years before their application to the zoning board, this property had been condemned by the city of Bridgeport. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Karp v. Zoning Bd. of City of Stamford
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1968
    ... ... Nielsen v ... Board of Appeals on Zoning, 129 Conn. 285, 289, 27 A.2d 392; Mabank Corporation v. Board ... ...
  • Morningside Ass'n v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of City of Milford
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1972
    ...board's action void. Corsino v. Grover, supra; DeMars v. Zoning Commission, 142 Conn. 580, 584, 115 A.2d 653; Nielsen v. Board of Appeals on Zoning, 129 Conn. 285, 287, 27 A.2d 392. Failure to state reasons merely places a burden on the court to search the record to see whether the board wa......
  • Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1953
    ...132 Conn. 537, 45 A.2d 828; DeFelice v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 130 Conn. 156, 32 A.2d 635, 147 A.L.R. 161; Nielsen v. Board of Appeals on Zoning, 129 Conn. 285, 27 A.2d 392; Benson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 129 Conn. 280, 27 A.2d 389; Torello v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 127 Conn. 307, 1......
  • Corsino v. Grover
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1961
    ...Commission, 147 Conn. 30, 31, 156 A.2d 470; DeMars v. Zoning Commission, 142 Conn. 580, 584, 115 A.2d 653; Nielsen v. Board of Appeals on Zoning, 129 Conn. 285, 287, 27 A.2d 392. Furthermore, the regulations effective August 12, 1958, and March 12, 1959, contained a detailed statement, thou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT