Rafala v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals Of City Of Hartford
| Decision Date | 17 November 1948 |
| Citation | 135 Conn. 142,62 A.2d 337 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | RAFALA v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CITY OF HARTFORD et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Parmelee, Judge.
Application by one Pulito to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Hartford for a permit to use premises for the purpose of a package store for the sale of alcoholic liquors at variance with a provision of zoning ordinance requiring an interval of 1,500 feet between such outlets, which was granted, and from which order granting permit Concetta Rafala, a neighboring property owner, appealed to the court of common pleas. From a judgment sustaining the appeal and reversing the action of the board, Pulito appeals.
No error.
Cornelius D. Shea, of Hartford, (Arnold M. Sweig, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellant (defendant Pulito).
Robert I. Ellis, of Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before MALTBLE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
The defendant zoning board of appeals granted the application of the defendant Pulito for a permit to use premises located at 492 Front Street in Hartford for the purpose of a package store for the sale of alcoholic liquors, at variance with a provision of the zoning ordinance requiring an interval of 1500 feet between such outlets. The plaintiff, a neighboring property owner, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, it sustained the appeal, and Pulito has appealed to this court.
A transcript of the hearing before the board was certified to the trial court, and no additional evidence was submitted. The court decided the appeal upon this record and the action of the board thereon, and made no additional finding of facts. Biz v. Liquor Control Commission, 133 Conn. 556, 557, 53 A.2d 655. The question before us is whether on this record the court was warranted in concluding that the board ‘exceeded its powers, acted unlawfully, arbitrarily and in abuse of its legal discretion.’
The undisputed facts may be summarized. Pulito operated a package store for many years upon premises leased by him at 485 Front Street at a monthly rental of $45. In March, 1947, the landlord increased the rent to $100 but refused to give Pulito a lease for any definite period. There was no evidence of the fair rental value of the premises. Pulito testified that business was bad and that he could not afford to pay the increased rent. He obtained a three-year lease of a store diagonally across Front Street known as No. 492 at a rental of $65 per month and vacated his permit premises at 485 Front Street. He cannot operate a package store at 492 Front Street unless he obtains a variation of the 1500-foot ordinance.
Both locations are within a business zone under the zoning ordinance, which is chapter 20 of the Municipal Code of Hartford, amended by an ordinance approved October 8, 1945, and which contains the following applicable provisions. Article II, § 7, subsection 5, provides: Within 1500 feet of the proposed location at 492 Front Street are twelve package stores selling alcoholic liquors. Article V, § 5, subsection 5, of the ordinance provides: One of the specific cases listed is in subparagraph (n) ‘In business * * * zones the requirements of Article II, Section 7, Sub-section 5, may be waived and permits given to * * * package stores which sell * * * alcoholic liquors.’ Subparagraph (n) is to be construed as being subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich
...or place unnecessary hardships upon the owner. Berkman v. Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 393, 399, 64 A.2d 875; Rafala v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 142, 146, 62 A.2d 337. To justify a special exception, on the other hand, it must appear that the manner in which the owner proposes to u......
-
MacKenzie v. Town Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Trumbull
...or arbitrarily. See cases such as Kutcher v. Town Planning Commission, 138 Conn. 705, 710, 88 A.2d 538; Rafala v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 142, 147, 62 A.2d 337. The plaintiff's claim that his expenditure of money in the court proceeding attacking the validity of the 1959 regulati......
-
Celentano v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Hartford
... ... There is no error ... In this opinion the other Judges concurred ... --------------- ... 1 Rafala v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 142, 62 A.2d 337; Celentano v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 16, 60 A.2d 510; Delaney v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 134 Conn. 240, 56 A.2d 647; Stavola v. Bulkeley, 134 Conn. 186, 56 A.2d 645; Kamerman v. LeRoy, 133 Conn. 232, 50 A.2d 175; ... ...
-
Farr v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Manchester
...v. Board of Appeals, 114 Conn. 15, 23, 157 A. 273. Thus the restriction will be more closely approximated. Rafala v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 142, 146, 62 A.2d 337. To permit the transfer of the nonconforming use at 35 Oak Street to 219 Spruce Street, where none had existed, would......