Celentano v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals Of Hartford

Decision Date14 July 1948
Citation135 Conn. 16,60 A.2d 510
PartiesCELENTANO et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF HARTFORD et al.
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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 within fifteen hundred feet radius in any direction of any lot upon which is located a building or premises used for the purpose of a restaurant, grill or tavern serving alcoholic liquor [or is] (c) * * * within two hundred feet radius of any part of a lot used or reserved to be used for the purpose of * * * a hospital operated as a benevolent institution.’ On July 28, 1947, the defendants made an application to the zoning board of appeals for a variation of the ordinance so that they might change their premises from a tavern to a restaurant where beer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Cologne v. Westfarms Associates
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 6, 1985
    ...based. 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 matters of fact are properly submitted to the t......
  • Loring v. Planning and Zoning Com'n
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 15, 2008
    ...v. 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 represe......
  • Tevolini v. Tevolini
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • October 2, 2001
    ...v. 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......
  • Smith v. Snyder
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 27, 2004
    ...ordinarily constitute evidence. Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 197 Conn. 141, 153, 496 A.2d 476 (1985); Celentano v. Zoning Board of 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 mor......
  • 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