Mrowka v. Bd. Of Zoning Appeals Of Town Of Plainville.
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ. |
| Citation | 55 A.2d 909,134 Conn. 149 |
| Parties | MROWKA et al. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF TOWN OF PLAINVILLE. |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1947 |
134 Conn. 149
55 A.2d 909
MROWKA et al.
v.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF TOWN OF PLAINVILLE.
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Nov. 14, 1947.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Pickett, Judge.
Appeal by Peter Mrowka and others from the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Plainville in refusing to grant a certificate of approval of a location for a gasoline station. Trial to the court resulted in a judgment sustaining the appeal, and defendant board appeals.
Error and case remanded with directions.
Wallace W. Brown, of Hartford, and Arnold M. Sweig, of Plainville, for appellant.
Leo V. Gaffney, of Hartford, for appellees.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
MALTBIE, Chief Justice.
The plaintiffs made an application to the board of zoning appeals of the town of Plainville ‘to put up gas station and have repairer's permit on corner of Woodford and Woodland St.’ and ‘to establish a business.’ The board denied the application. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, alleging that they had filed with the board an application for a certificate of approval of a location for a gasoline station at the place designated. The court sustained the appeal and the defendant board has appealed to this court.
A primary question arises out of the claim by the zoning board that the court had no jurisdiction of the appeal because of the joinder in the application to the board of a request for a permit to put up a gasoline station and a permit to make repairs to motor vehicles. While the application lacked formality, it is quite evidence that, as the parties viewed it at the trial, the request had two aspects: It sought the certificate of approval of the location required before a license to sell gasoline and other products used in motor vehicles can be obtained from the commissioner of motor vehicles; General Statutes, Sup.1941, § 242f; Cum.Sup.1939, § 552e; and the like certificate required before the commissioner can issue a license for the conduct of the business of repairing motor vehicles. Sup.1941, §§ 212f, 214f. In both instances the statutes require that the certificate be issued by the zoning board of appeals if there is one in the town where the business is to be carried on. In the case of a certificate of approval of a location for the sale of gasoline, the statute was amended in 1941 to provide that an appeal lies only to the Court of Common Pleas; §§ 243f, 810f. Later, at the same session, the statute concerning the licensing of repairers of motor vehicles was enacted and signed by the Governor, and it provided that an appeal from a zoning board with reference to the location for carrying on that business must be taken to the Superior Court. Sup.1941 § 217f. While it would have been better practice for the plaintiffs to have made separate applications for the two certificates, we can see no fatal objection to the joinder of the two in a single application. When the board denied the application as a whole, the issues presented by the two requests were so separable that an appeal from the denial of the certificate as to the gasoline station only might not improperly be taken. Even in the strict procedure of the courts an appeal may be taken from a separable portion of a judgment. Town of Enfield v. Hamilton, 110 Conn. 319, 322, 149 A. 353. Indeed, the zoning board, after it had treated the application as properly presenting both
questions instead of requiring a separation, can hardly claim before the court that the applicants could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. City of Twin Falls, No. 8711
...89, 286 P. 358]; McPherson v. First Presbyterian Church, 120 Okl. 40, 248 P. 561, 51 A.L.R. 1215; Mrowka v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 134 Conn. 149, 55 A.2d 909; Anderson v. City of Holland, 344 Mich. 706, 74 N.W.2d 894; Garrett v. Borough of Beaver, 367 Pa. 626, 81 A.2d 900. Here, not only ......
-
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, No. 10094
...York: Russell Sage Foundation 1940); Olp v. Town of Brighton, 173 Misc. 1079, 19 N.Y.S.2d 546 at 552-553 (1940). 42 Note 40, supra. 43 134 Conn. 149, 55 A.2d 909 44 Id. at 154-155, 55 A.2d 911-912; see also Zelazny v. Town Board of Town of North Hempstead, Sup., 101 N.Y.S.2d 178 (1950); cf.......
-
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City of Stamford, AC 41208
...use is permitted in the zone in question. That perception is contrary to established precedent. In Mrowka v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 134 Conn. 149, 149-51, 55 A.2d 909 (1947), the applicants sought licenses to sell gasoline and to conduct automobile repairs on a property in Plainville, bot......
-
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Stamford, AC 41208
...in the zone in question. That perception is contrary to established precedent.213 Conn.App. 231 In Mrowka v. Board of Zoning Appeals , 134 Conn. 149, 149–51, 55 A.2d 909 (1947), the applicants sought licenses to sell gasoline and to conduct automobile repairs on a property in Plainville, bo......
-
White v. City of Twin Falls, No. 8711
...89, 286 P. 358]; McPherson v. First Presbyterian Church, 120 Okl. 40, 248 P. 561, 51 A.L.R. 1215; Mrowka v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 134 Conn. 149, 55 A.2d 909; Anderson v. City of Holland, 344 Mich. 706, 74 N.W.2d 894; Garrett v. Borough of Beaver, 367 Pa. 626, 81 A.2d 900. Here, not only ......
-
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, No. 10094
...York: Russell Sage Foundation 1940); Olp v. Town of Brighton, 173 Misc. 1079, 19 N.Y.S.2d 546 at 552-553 (1940). 42 Note 40, supra. 43 134 Conn. 149, 55 A.2d 909 44 Id. at 154-155, 55 A.2d 911-912; see also Zelazny v. Town Board of Town of North Hempstead, Sup., 101 N.Y.S.2d 178 (1950); cf.......
-
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City of Stamford, AC 41208
...use is permitted in the zone in question. That perception is contrary to established precedent. In Mrowka v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 134 Conn. 149, 149-51, 55 A.2d 909 (1947), the applicants sought licenses to sell gasoline and to conduct automobile repairs on a property in Plainville, bot......
-
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Stamford, AC 41208
...in the zone in question. That perception is contrary to established precedent.213 Conn.App. 231 In Mrowka v. Board of Zoning Appeals , 134 Conn. 149, 149–51, 55 A.2d 909 (1947), the applicants sought licenses to sell gasoline and to conduct automobile repairs on a property in Plainville, bo......