Shuman v. Brainard
| Decision Date | 10 February 1944 |
| Parties | SHUMAN v. BRAINARD et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Klau, Judge.
Proceedings by Max Shuman against Stanley N. Brainard and others, wherein an appeal, from action of Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hartford denying plaintiff's application for a certificate of approval for the use of his premises as a package store for the sale of liquor, was brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
No error.
Edwin M. Ryan, of Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Leon A. Winslow, of Hartford, for appellees (named defendant et al.)
Louis M. Schatz and John J. Burke, both of Hartford, for appellees (defendants Grody).
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, DICKENSON, and DALY (Judge EDWARD J. DALY of the Superior Court sat for Judge ELLS).
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing an appeal from the denial by the zoning board of appeals in East Hartford of his application for a certificate of approval to conduct a package store for the sale of liquor at 489 Main Street in that town. The finding is not attacked.
The plaintiff purchased a package store at 486 Main Street from Samuel Grody in 1937 and ran it as backer under a lease from Anna Grody. The lease expired on November 30, 1942, and the owner declined to renew. The plaintiff thereupon filed his application for a certificate of approval for a two and a half story frame building across the street at number 489 which he had purchased in 1941.
East Hartford adopted a general zoning ordinance in 1927 under which both of the described properties were in a business zone. In 1938 the zoning regulations were amended by limiting in certain respects the places in which liquor could be sold. Section 4 of this amendment reads as follows: ‘In a business or industrial zone no building or premises shall be used and no building shall be erected or structurally altered which is arranged or intended or designed to be used as a package store for sale of alcoholic beverages, or a drug store intending to sell liquor until a certificate of approval for such location shall have been issued by a majority vote of the Zoning Board of Appeals, after public notice and hearing.’ This is the only provision applicable to a package store.
On November 2, 1942, a public hearing was held on the plaintiff's application, the stenographic record of which is made a part of the finding. The neighborhood is almost entirely residential. The plaintiff intends to remodel the first floor of the building at 489 Main Street at a cost of $1700 for use as a package store, but it is uncertain by reason of various federal regulations whether he can evict the tenant now in possession or purchase the necessary materials. On November 1, 1942, there were, in East Hartford, thirteen package store permittees, nine drug store permittees-both of which classes were permitted to sell all legal types of liquor-and twelve package store permittees, allowed to sell beer only.
It appears from the proceedings before the zoning board that the plaintiff's application was opposed by Grody but that the board was not interested in the relations between the plaintiff and the defendants Mr. and Mrs. Grody. After further evidence, including opposition from a neighbor, and argument, the board went into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Connecticut Medical Examining Bd.
...v. Kelly, 138 Conn. 614, 619, 88 A.2d 382; Skarzynski v. Liquor Control Commission, 122 Conn. 521, 525, 191 A. 98; see Shuman v. Brainard, 130 Conn. 564, 568, 36 A.2d 113; Cohen v. Board of Appeals on Zoning, 139 Conn. 450, 452, 94A.2d 793. If they are, the court cannot change The grounds f......
-
Conley v. Board of Ed. of City of New Britain
...v. Kelly, 138 Conn. 614, 619, 88 A.2d 382; Skarzynski v. Liquor Control Commission, 122 Conn. 521, 525, 191 A. 98; see Shuman v. Brainard, 130 Conn. 564, 568, 36 A.2d 113; Cohen v. Board of Appeals on Zoning 139 Conn. 450, 452, 94 A.2d 793. If they are, the court cannot change them.' See De......
-
Watson v. Howard
...question was whether they acted illegally or arbitrarily or so unreasonably as to have abused their discretion. Shuman v. Brainard, 130 Conn. 564, 567, 36 A.2d 113; Benson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 129 Conn. 280, 281, 27 A.2d 389; Levine v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 124 Conn. 53, 57, 198 A......
-
State Ex Rel. Spiros v. Payne
...16 A.2d 286; Benson v. Zoning Board, 129 Conn. 280, 27 A.2d 389; Nielsen v. Board of Appeals, 129 Conn. 285, 27 A.2d 392; Shuman v. Brainard, 130 Conn. 564, 36 A.2d 113; State ex rel. Heimov v. Thomson, 131 Conn. 8, 37 A.2d 689; State ex rel. Chatlos v. Rowland, supra, 131 Conn. 265, 38 A.2......