Celentano v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals Of Hartford
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ. |
| Citation | 135 Conn. 16,60 A.2d 510 |
| Parties | CELENTANO et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF HARTFORD et al. |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1948 |
135 Conn. 16
60 A.2d 510
CELENTANO et al.
v.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF HARTFORD et al.
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
July 14, 1948.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; McDonough, Judge.
Appeal by Matilda Celentano and others from the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Hartford and others in granting an application varying the provisions of the zoning ordinance so as to permit use of certain premises as a restaurant selling alcoholic liquor, brought to the court of common pleas and tried to the court. From a judgment for defendant and dismissing the appeal, plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court of Errors.
Error and new trial ordered.
Joseph J. Trantolo, John P. Cotter and John W. Joy, all of Hartford, for the appellants.
Norman Yellin, of Hartford, for appellees Ginszanski et al.
Samuel Gould, of Hartford (Franz J. Carlson, of Hartford, on the brief), for Zoning Board of Appeals.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
DICKENSON, Judge.
This is the plaintiffs' appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing their appeal from the action of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Hartford in granting two of the defendants a variation from the requirements of the zoning ordinance so that they could conduct a restaurant where beer could be sold instead of a tavern with a beer permit. Error is assigned in the finding and in the conclusion of the court that the zoning board acted legally in varying the provisions of ordinances relating to the granting of such permits.
Undisputed facts are as follows: The defendants Ginszanski and DiBattista, to whom we shall hereinafter refer as the defendants, owned and operated a tavern at 64-66 Maple Avenue, Hartford, as an existing nonconforming use. The property is within 200 feet of the Hartford Hospital, and there are 19 establishments where liquor is dispensed within 1500 feet of the premises. The plaintiffs are neighboring property owners. The premises are in Zoning Business No. 2 under the Hartford zoning ordinance. Article 2, § 7, subsection 5A of the ordinance provides in part as follows: ‘No building or premises shall be used * * * which is arranged, intended or designed to be used: (a) for a restaurant, grill or tavern serving alcoholic liquor (as defined in the Liquor Control Act) if any part of said building or premises is situated on any part of a lot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cologne v. Westfarms Associates
...These representations of the plaintiffs' counsel are not "evidence" and certainly not "proof." See Celentano v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 16, 18, 60 A.2d 510 (1948). Fairly stated, evidence legally is the means by which alleged [197 Conn. 154] matters of fact are properly submitted......
-
Loring v. Planning and Zoning Com'n, No. 17886.
...Board of Zoning Appeals, supra, 140 Conn. at 293, 99 A.2d 149, this court overruled "the dictum in Celentano v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 16, 18, 60 A.2d 510 [1948], that such statements [of counsel before zoning boards] are not evidence...." I note that the Parsons rule represents......
-
Tevolini v. Tevolini, (AC 19861)
...Rives, 123 F.2d 936, 941 (D.C. Cir. 1941); Dunn v. Stewart, 235 F. Sup. 955, 964 (S.D. Miss. 1964); Celentano v. Zoning Board of Appeals, [135 Conn. 16, 18, 60 A.2d 510 (1948)]; American National Bank & Trust Co. of Mobile v. Long, 281 Ala. 654, 656, 207 So. 2d 129 (1968); Sloan v. Sloan, 3......
-
Smith v. Snyder, (SC 16801).
...evidence. Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 197 Conn. 141, 153, 496 A.2d 476 (1985); Celentano v. Zoning Board of 267 Conn. 493 Appeals, 135 Conn. 16, 18, 60 A.2d 510 (1948). I therefore fail to see why a formal statement of counsel satisfies any evidentiary If, however, as seems more likely......
-
Cologne v. Westfarms Associates
...These representations of the plaintiffs' counsel are not "evidence" and certainly not "proof." See Celentano v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 16, 18, 60 A.2d 510 (1948). Fairly stated, evidence legally is the means by which alleged [197 Conn. 154] matters of fact are properly submitted......
-
Loring v. Planning and Zoning Com'n, No. 17886.
...Board of Zoning Appeals, supra, 140 Conn. at 293, 99 A.2d 149, this court overruled "the dictum in Celentano v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 16, 18, 60 A.2d 510 [1948], that such statements [of counsel before zoning boards] are not evidence...." I note that the Parsons rule represents......
-
Tevolini v. Tevolini, (AC 19861)
...Rives, 123 F.2d 936, 941 (D.C. Cir. 1941); Dunn v. Stewart, 235 F. Sup. 955, 964 (S.D. Miss. 1964); Celentano v. Zoning Board of Appeals, [135 Conn. 16, 18, 60 A.2d 510 (1948)]; American National Bank & Trust Co. of Mobile v. Long, 281 Ala. 654, 656, 207 So. 2d 129 (1968); Sloan v. Sloan, 3......
-
Smith v. Snyder, (SC 16801).
...evidence. Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 197 Conn. 141, 153, 496 A.2d 476 (1985); Celentano v. Zoning Board of 267 Conn. 493 Appeals, 135 Conn. 16, 18, 60 A.2d 510 (1948). I therefore fail to see why a formal statement of counsel satisfies any evidentiary If, however, as seems more likely......