Pascale v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of New Haven
| Decision Date | 20 November 1962 |
| Citation | 186 A.2d 377,150 Conn. 113 |
| Parties | , 100 A.L.R.2d 414 Frank PASCALE v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF the CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Mitchel W. Garber, New Haven, for appellant (defendant cuozzo).
Wilbur J. Land, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.
On April 22, 1960, the plaintiff applied for, and the building inspector granted, a permit to erect a two-story four-family house on premises owned by the plaintiff at 394 and 398 Lexington Avenue in New Haven. The building is in a residence B zone. See New Haven Zoning Ordinance § 1013 (1958); New Haven Code § 32-44 (1962). The regulations require that in such a zone there be two side yards aggregating at least fifteen feet in width and that neither be less than seven feet wide. New Haven Zoning Ordinance § 1023 (1958); New Haven Code § 32-27 (1962). The side yards adjacent to the plaintiff's building are eight feet and nine feet four inches, respectively. There is a separate means of ingress and egress to each of the two second-floor apartments by a series of steps and risers. These steps are adjacent to, and at right angles to, the outside of the building on one side, and each series leads upward to a landing outside a door to an apartment. They have railings but are uncovered. The inspector's final approval of the building was given on December 20, 1960. Mrs. Vito Cuozzo, a defendant, owns the house and lot adjoining the side yard into which the steps project. On January 10, 1961, she appealed to the defendant board from the decision of the building inspector, claiming that the steps violated the side-yard requirement of the regulations. On February 7, 1961, the board, after a hearing, sustained her appeal and ordered the plaintiff to correct the violation. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which overruled the board. Mrs. Cuozzo has appealed from the judgment.
The special act creating the board of zoning appeals of New Haven provides that any person claiming to be aggrieved by any decision made by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of the zoning ordinance may appeal to the board, which 'shall hear and determine the legality and reasonableness of' the decision. 19 Spec.Laws, p. 1007, § 6; see Celentano, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 149 Conn. 671, 676, 184 A.2d 49; Spesa v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 141 Conn. 653, 655, 109 A.2d 362. A statute of this kind entrusts to the board 'the function of deciding, within prescribed limits and consistent with the exercise of legal discretion, whether the ordinance applies to a given situation, and the manner in which it does apply.' Stern v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 140 Conn. 241, 245, 99 A.2d 130. The interpretation of legislation presents a question of law. Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 144 Conn. 677, 684, 136 A.2d 785. However, an administrative agency such as the board in the instant case is called on to determine the applicability of the law to a given state of facts presented to it. See Fox v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 70, 75, 147 A.2d 472. The trial court had to decide whether the board correctly interpreted the regulation and applied it with reasonable discretion to the facts.
The zoning ordinance defines 'side yard' as the 'required open space extending along the side lot line throughout the whole depth of the lot, excluding cornices, eaves, gutters and chimneys projecting not more than 12 inches, and uncovered steps.' New Haven Zoning Ordinance § 1008(9) (1958); New Haven Code § 32-2(15) (1962). The plaintiff claims that the means of ingress and egress which he has provided for the second floor of his building are 'uncovered steps' within the meaning of that term in the ordinance.
When ambiguous language is used in a zoning ordinance, its meaning and scope may be found by examining the language in the light of other provisions in the ordinance, by ascertaining the object sought to be accomplished, and by considering all other relevant circumstances. Garbaty v. Norwalk Jewish Center, Inc., 148 Conn. 376, 381, 171 A.2d 197; Wilson v. Miller, 144 Conn. 212, 214, 128 A.2d 894; Gilbert v. Town of Hamden, 135 Conn. 630, 635, 68 A.2d 157; Town of Darien v. Webb, 115 Conn. 581, 585, 162 A. 690. The ordinance contains no legislative definition of the term 'uncovered steps.' The building code of New Haven, however, defines 'stairway' as follows: 'One or more flights of stairs having three (3) or more risers with connecting landings and platforms which provide a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one story to another or to the ground in a building or structure.' New Haven Bldg. Code p401(157) (1962). It is true that the phrase 'in a building or structure' may contemplate a stairway inside the building or a stairway otherwise incorporated in the structure. It is likewise true that significance must be given to the words 'to the ground' and the use of 'in' rather than 'within.' Furthermore, the building code defines 'exitway' as the 'exit doorway or doorways, or such doorways together with connecting hallways and stairways, whether interior or exterior,' by which the occupants of a building may proceed from the inside to the street. Id. p401(59). The code provides that at least one of the requisite exitways from a building such as the plaintiff's may be a stairway on the outside. Id. p713.2. An examination of a photograph which was before the board and the court shows each of the series of steps complained of to be precisely that, a stairway on the outside of this building.
The obvious purpose of the side-yard regulation is to serve the public health and safety by requiring space for the free passage of air between buildings and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Unemployment Sec. Bd. of Review
...supra; Guevara v. Administrator, supra. Since statutory interpretation presents a question of law; Pascale v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 150 Conn. 113, 116, 186 A.2d 377; as a preliminary step in determining whether the Superior erred in deciding that the appeals referee's conclusion must sta......
-
New York Annual Conference of United Methodist Church v. Fisher
...... individuals who constituted the official board of the Round Hill Methodist[182 Conn. 276] ... cognizance, subject only to such appeals" as the organism itself provides for.\" . \xC2"...Stylarama of New Haven, Inc., 174 Conn. 217, 218-19, 384 A.2d 377 ...199, 207, 205 A.2d 495 (1964); Pascale v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 150 Conn. 113, 119, ... and other buildings, by its telephone and city directory listings, and by its listings in the ......
-
Steroco, Inc. v. Szymanski
...bar a private party, the plaintiff, from enforcing a municipality's zoning regulations. Our Supreme Court, in Pascale v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 150 Conn. 113, 186 A.2d 377 (1962), noted the distinction with respect to how municipal estoppel applies only to municipalities and not to privat......
-
Goncalves v. Regent Intern. Hotels, Ltd.
...United Presbyt. Assn. v. Board of County Comrs. of County of Jefferson, 167 Colo. 485, 448 P.2d 967; Pascale v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of New Haven, 150 Conn. 113, 186 A.2d 377; Lime-Cola Bottling Co. v. Atlanta & West Point R.R. Co., 34 Ga.App. 103, 128 S.E. 226; Barnett v. Reed, ......