Shulman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Hartford
| Decision Date | 27 January 1956 |
| Citation | 143 Conn. 182,120 A.2d 550 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Maurice W. SHULMAN v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the CITY OF HARTFORD. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Joseph L. Shulman, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Frank A. Murphy, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, were John J. Kenny and Alexander A. Goldfarb, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.
On September 14, 1948, the defendant board held a public hearing upon an application previously filed with it by Edward C. Humphrey. As set forth in the application, Humphrey was requesting the board to grant him permission under the zoning ordinance to extend a nonconforming use of premises which he then owned. Directly after the hearing, the board went into executive session and unanimously voted to approve the application. The plaintiff, a nearby property owner, claiming to be aggrieved, appealed from that action of the board and summoned it to appear before the Court of Common Pleas on the first Tuesday of November, 1948. Although the issues were soon closed by the board's answer, the matter lay dormant for six years. Finally the case was heard, and judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on March 21, 1955. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment.
We note at the outset that the appeal from the board was not served on Humphrey. He was not only a proper party but also an indispensible one, since a right granted to him by the board was being challenged. Devaney v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 132 Conn. 218, 220, 43 A.2d 304. The court should have cited him in as a party defendant before passing on the merit of the appeal. While it is true that the court's decision did not attempt to destroy his right but rather to support it, we are reluctant, after the passage of over seven years since permission to extend the nonconforming use was granted, to examine the correctness of the court's judgment until Humphrey has been cited into the case and been given an opportunity to be heard. See Kuehne v. Town Council, 136 Comm. 452, 462, 72 A.2d 474.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to be proceeded with in accordance with this opinion.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stamford Ridgeway Associates v. Board of Representatives of City of Stamford
... ... The principal issue that we decide in these appeals is whether § C-552.2 1 of the Stamford charter permits the board of resentatives to vote on separate zone changes contained in one zoning application or whether the board of representatives must act on the entire ... and prescribing the form in which it must be exercised.' West Hartford Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Streeter, 190 Conn. 736, 742, 462 A.2d 379 ... 187, 190-91, 319 A.2d 393 (1972); see also Shulman v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 143 Conn. 182, 183, 120 A.2d 550 (1956)." ... ...
-
Leventhal v. Michaelis
...Corporations 3d ed., Vol. 8, pp. 784, 787, Zoning § 25.318; and decisions of the courts of Connecticut (Shulman v. Zoning Board of Appeals, City of Hartford, 143 Conn. 182, 120 A.2d 550; Kuehne v. Town Council of Town of East Hartford, 136 Conn. 452, 72 A.2d 474; Devaney v. Board of Zoning ......
-
Fong v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich
...304 [1945]." Tazza v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 164 Conn. 187, 190-91, 319 A.2d 393 (1972); see also Shulman v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 143 Conn. 182, 183, 120 A.2d 550 (1956). The plaintiffs attempt to distinguish the present case on the ground that in the cases cited the applicant to......
-
Hillcroft Partners v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
...as of right to be admitted as a party" and thus to notice of an appeal contesting that award. See Shulman v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 143 Conn. 182, 183, 120 A.2d 550 (1956); Devaney v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 132 Conn. 218, 220, 43 A.2d 304 (1945). Because the absence of notice to one hav......