Saporiti v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Manchester
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Before BROWN; BALDWIN |
| Citation | 78 A.2d 741,137 Conn. 478 |
| Parties | SAPORITI v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF MANCHESTER. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1951 |
Page 741
v.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF MANCHESTER.
[137 Conn. 479] Arnold M. Schwolsky, Hartford, John W. Joy, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Charles S. House, Town Counsel, Manchester, for the appellee (defendant).
Before [137 Conn. 478] BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
[137 Conn. 479] BALDWIN, Judge.
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
Page 742
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 [137 Conn. 480] 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 [137 Conn. 481] court viewed the premises and observed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich
...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 hearing shal......
-
McMahon v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of New Haven
...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 Page 288 corner of Rowe and Chatham Streets since sometime before the adoption......
-
Wilson Point Property Owners Ass'n v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
...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; Executive Televis......
-
Romano v. Connecticut State Welfare Dept., No. CV
...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. 535, 540,......
-
Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich
...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 hearing shal......
-
McMahon v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of New Haven
...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 Page 288 corner of Rowe and Chatham Streets since sometime before the adoption......
-
Wilson Point Property Owners Ass'n v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
...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; Executive Televis......
-
Romano v. Connecticut State Welfare Dept., No. CV
...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. 535, 540,......