Abbadessa v. Bd. Of Zoning Appeals Of City Of New Haven.

Decision Date09 July 1947
Citation134 Conn. 28,54 A.2d 675
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesABBADESSA et al. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF CITY OF NEW HAVEN.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Fitzgerald, Judge.

Proceeding on appeal by Antonetta Abbadessa and others from the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of New Haven in imposing a condition on its grant of permission for plaintiffs to use certain premises as a parking lot. From a judgment sustaining the appeal and revoking the condition after trial to the court, the board appeals.

No error.

William L. Beers and Alfred F. Celentano, both of New Haven, (George G. DiCenzo, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellant (defendant).

Morris Tyler and Richard H. Bowerman, both of New Haven, for appellees (plaintiffs).

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

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

This proceeding is an appeal from the board of zoning appeals of New Haven. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs and the defendant board has appealed. The question involves its right to impose conditions upon a grant of permission to use a lot for parking space for the employees of a factory.

So far as necessary for the decision of this appeal, the facts as found by the trial court, briefly stated, present this situation: The plaintiff Antonetta Abbadessa, to whom we shall refer as the plaintiff, owned a lot which, from a time before the adoption of zoning in New Haven, had been used continuously for the storage of material and equipment and the maintenance of an office in connection with the operation of a contracting business. The property was in an area originally in an industrial A zone, but later changed to a residence zone. The use of the premises in connection with the contracting business thereafter constituted a nonconforming use. The lot lies in the middle of a block bounded northerly by Derby Avenue and westerly by Mead Street and a driveway runs from it to the latter street. The Berger Brothers Company owns and operates a factory on the north side of Derby Ave., apparently in an industrial zone. In 1939 it purchased the rear portion of a lot on the south side of Derby Avenue opposite its factory for use as a parking lot for its employees. This land adjoins the Abbadessa lot and entrance to it is only through a driveway from Derby Avenue. The company now desires to purchase the Abbadessa lot to increase the parking facilities for its employees, to combine it with the parking space proviously acquired, and to use both the driveway to that space from Derby Avenue and the driveway to the Abbadessa lot from Mead Street.

The zoning ordinance provides that it is the duty of the building inspector to enforce its provisions. The record does not show how the matter came before him, but we infer that the plaintiff applied for approval of the use of the lot for parking by employees of the Berger Company, and upon a blank, apparently prepared for use as regards building permits, appears an entry with respect to her application: ‘Building permit is refused by reason of the following Zoning Restriction: The use of the property * * * appears to constitute a non-conforming use. Confirmation of this non-conforming use is desired from the Zoning Board.’ The plaintiff appealed from that order to the board of zoning appeals. After hearing the matter it concluded that the use of the premises constituted a nonconforming use, but that the passage of vehicles over the driveway to Mead Street would create a traffic hazard; and it decided to grant the appeal on condition that that driveway be closed and the only entrance and exit be through the driveway to Derby Avenue. The ordinance provides that a nonconforming use may be changed to a use of the same or a higher classification, and in the argument before us it was not questioned that, under this provision, changing the use of the lot from that made in connection with the contracting business to one for the parking of automobiles would be in itself a permissible continuance of the nonconforming use. The plaintiff claims that such a continuance carries with it the right to use the lot in the same way that it had been previously used with an entrance from Mead Street. The defendant contends, however, that the situation falls within another provision of the ordinance which authorizes the board ‘subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards' to ‘permit the extension of an existing commercial or industrial establishment in any district’; that the use of the Abbadessa lot by the Berger Company as a parking space is an extension of its industrial plant; and that the board, in granting the permission for that use, could properly impose the condition it did.

Zoning is concerned with the use of specific existing buildings and lots, and not primarily with their ownership. Metzenbaum, Law of Zoning, p. 14. In Matter of Mounument Garage Corporation v. Levy, 266 N.Y. 339, 344, 194 N.E. 848, it was held that, where the line dividing a business district from a residence district crossed a lot, the portion in the former might be used for commercial parking but that use could not be extended to the part of the lot in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Helbig v. Zoning Commission of Noank Fire Dist.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 18, 1981
    ... ... Robert HELBIG ... ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR the NOANK FIRE DISTRICT ... Supreme Court of Connecticut ... Section 8-2 authorizes "the zoning commission of each city, town or borough ... to regulate within the limits of any such ... 11, 16, 291 A.2d 208 (1971); Abbadessa" v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 134 Conn. 28, 34, 54 A.2d 675 (1947) ...  \xC2" ... ...
  • 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 of Zoning Appeals, 143 ... LaVoie v. Building Commission, 135 Conn. 415, 419, 65 A.2d 165; Abbadessa v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 134 Conn. 28, 32, 54 A.2d 675. See Rhyne, Municipal Law § 32-1, p ... ...
  • Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 5, 2022
  • Builders Service Corp., Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Com'n of Town of East Hampton
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 12, 1988
    ... ... See General Statutes § 8-1; Puskarz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 360, 364-65, 232 A.2d 109 (1967). Chapter 124 includes § ... 506, 508, 423 A.2d 147 (1979); Martino v. Grace-New Haven Community Hospital, 146 Conn. 735, 736, 148 A.2d 259 (1959). This also ... 46, 53, 118 A.2d 894 (1955); Abbadessa v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 134 Conn. 28, 34, 54 A.2d 675 (1947). We ... -2, entitled "Regulations," provides: "The zoning commission of each city, town or borough is authorized to regulate, within the limits of such ... ...
  • 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