Saporiti v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Manchester
| Decision Date | 30 January 1951 |
| Citation | 78 A.2d 741,137 Conn. 478 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAPORITI v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF MANCHESTER. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Arnold M. Schwolsky, Hartford, John W. Joy, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Charles S. House, Town Counsel, Manchester, for the appellee (defendant).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas which affirmed a decision of the zoning board of appeals of the town of Manchester sustaining an order of the building inspector directing the plaintiff to cease operations upon his property claimed to be in violation of the zoning ordinance. The plaintiff claims that he was operating a retail establishment permitted by the zoning regulations pertaining to a business zone, that his operations were not detrimental to the neighborhood because of noise and vibration, and that the decision of the zoning board of appeals was illegal, arbitrary and in abuse of its discretion.
The plaintiff seeks extensive corrections in the finding, but no material correction can be made. The court upon conflicting evidence found the following facts: The plaintiff came to Manchester in 1945, intending to establish and operate a retail monument store. He purchased property on Center Street upon which he built an office and salesroom. In the rear, attached to the building, was another structure in which he installed a compressor for use in lettering monuments. The land and buildings are located in a business zone. In the course of his business the plaintiff displayed monuments and stone markers. After a monument was sold to a customer, the compressor was utilized to cut the inscription by forcing sand against that part of the face of the stone which was left exposed after a rubber stencil, with the letters of the inscription cut out, had been affixed to the surface. The lettering of each monument required use of the compressor for at least half an hour. Operation of it caused a considerable amount of noise and vibration. Persons residing in a residence zone which adjoined the plaintiff's property complained to the building inspector as enforcement officer under the zoning regulations. As the result of a warning from the inspector, the plaintiff installed a rubber base under the compressor and attached a Maxim silencer. The complaints continued and on September 16, 1947, the building inspector ordered the immediate cessation of the lettering operations because of the noise and vibration. The plaintiff appealed from this order to the zoning board of appeals. The board, after taking evidence, upheld the order of the building inspector. The plaintiff appealed from its decision to the Court of Common Pleas.
There was evidence before the zoning board of appeals that the noise made by the compressor was comparable to that made by a pavement breaker, and following the hearing it was determined by scientific methods that the operation of the compressor increased the noise and vibration in the immediate neighborhood by 3 per cent. At an increased cost, the lettering of the monuments could be done by the plaintiff away from his premises or in the cemetery when the stones were placed. The noise and vibration were distracting and disturbing to the people living in the adjoining 'A' residence zone. At the request of the parties, the court viewed the premises and observed the machinery in operation. It decided that the plaintiff's place of business was a monument works, that the plaintiff was engaged in an industrial use not permitted in a business zone, that the operations were detrimental to the neighborhood because of the noise and vibration, and that the defendant board was justified in upholding the order of the building inspector.
Section 6 of article 2 of the zoning regulations of the town of Manchester contains, among others, the following provisions: * * *' Specifically excluded from a business zone are:
Section 6 of article 5 of the regulations provides that the board of appeals shall
The plaintiff contends that, since there was no specific reference to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich
...no standing to press their present complaint. But, that aside, proceedings before a zoning board are informal. Saporiti v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 137 Conn. 478, 482, 78 A.2d 741. Nor are they carried out under the strict rules of evidence. 'The only requirement is that the conduct of the ......
-
McMahon v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of New Haven
...use violated the ordinance. It was a question of the reasonableness of the use and involved an issue of fact. Saporiti v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 137 Conn. 478, 483, 78 A.2d 741. There had been a dairy plant on the northwest corner of Rowe and Chatham Streets since sometime before the adop......
-
Wilson Point Property Owners Ass'n v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
...the finding shows the facts upon which the commission acted and demonstrates the reasons for its conclusions. Saporiti v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 137 Conn. 478, 483, 78 A.2d 741; see Colorado-Wyoming Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 324 U.S. 626, 634, 65 S.Ct. 850, 89 L.Ed. 1235; Execu......
-
Romano v. Connecticut State Welfare Dept.
...171 A. 26; 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, § 748. 'Proceedings before an administrative board are informal. Saporiti v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 137 Conn. 478, 482, 78 A.2d 741. Such a board is not bound by the strict rules of evidence. Adam v. Connecticut Medical Examining Board, 137 Conn......