Adley v. Paier

Decision Date24 January 1961
Citation148 Conn. 84,167 A.2d 449
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesRalph ADLEY et al. v. Edward T. PAIER et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

T. Holmes Bracken, New Haven, for appellant (defendant Adele K. Paier), with whom was Nathan A. Resnick, New Haven, for appellant (defendant Edward T. Paier).

Dennis N. Garvey, New Haven, with whom were Richard P. Sperandeo and Josef A. Weinstein, New Haven, for appellees (plaintiffs).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.

MURPHY, Associate Justice.

The defendants are the owners of premises, at 6 Prospect Court in Hamden, which they purchased in 1957. Since September, 1957, they have conducted, in the building on this property, an art school as a permitted use in a residential zone. Hamden Zoning Regs. §§ 4, 34.1.11 (1930, as amended). On March 18, 1958, they purchased a vacant lot immediately adjoining the school on the east. It has a frontage of about ninety-one feet on Prospect Court. After its acquisition, it was used to a limited extent for the parking of automobiles, and since September, 1958, about twenty-five cars of faculty and students have been accommodated on it. The home of the named plaintiff and his wife is on property adjoining the lot on the east. The other plaintiffs are the owners and occupants of other homes in the immediate neighborhood. Upon application of the plaintiffs, the Superior Court enjoined the defendants from using the lot as a parking area for motor vehicles in violation of the zoning regulations of Hamden. The defendants have appealed.

The zoning regulations of Hamden are of the permissive type. The property of the defendants is in a residential zone for single-family dwellings; educational institutions are permitted, together with incidental accessory uses located upon the same lot. Hamden Zoning Regs. § 4(3), (8) (1930, as amended). The defendants contend that provision for the parking of automobiles of students and faculty is customarily incidental to the operation of a school like that of the defendants and that therefore the use of the lot for such a purpose is a permissible accessory use. If we assume, without deciding, that such parking could be an accessory use under the Hamden zoning regulations, it could only be so if it was on the same lot as the principal use. The facts in this case do not permit us to conclude that it was. The subdivision map of the area shows that the lot was laid out as a part of the lot upon which the Adley home is located. The school property and the parking lot were acquired by the defendants at different times and by separate deeds. The contract of sale of the lot describes it as a building lot, separate and distinct from the dwelling house and property adjoining it. Parking on the lot could not legally constitute...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Carmical v McAfee
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • December 22, 1999
    ...lot" for the purpose of establishing an accessory use on one lot incidental to a principal use conducted on the other lot. Adley v. Paier, 167 A.2d 449 (Conn. 1961); Larsen v. Town of Colton, 973 P.2d 1066 (Wash. App. 1999). Several jurisdictions have interpreted the "same lot" restriction ......
  • Corsino v. Grover
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1961
    ...proposed use of lots of less than the required area is a nonconforming use which cannot be disturbed is not valid. See Adley v. Paier, 148 Conn. 84, 86, 167 A.2d 449. The trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal in the second case or in refusing to render a declaratory j......
  • Bianco v. Town of Darien
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1969
    ...Repasadi v. Phillips, 2 A.D.2d 451, 453, 156 N.Y.S.2d 746; 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed.) § 25.186; see Adley v. Paier, 148 Conn. 84, 86, 167 A.2d 449. Any contrary rule would impute an intent in a new municipal code or ordinance to legalize every violation of the provisions o......
  • Town of Harvard v. Maxant
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1971
    ...of the property except for the landing strip. Village of Old Westbury v. Hoblin, 141 N.Y.S.2d 186 (N.Y.Supr.Ct.). See Adley v. Paier, 148 Conn. 84, 86, 167 A.2d 449; Mahler v. Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Fair Lawn, 94 N.J.Super. 173, 180, 227 A.2d 511, affd. 55 N.J. 1, 258 A.2d 70......
  • 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