Silver Lane Pickle Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of East Hartford

• Decision Date: 10 April 1956
• Citation: 143 Conn. 316,122 A.2d 218
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SILVER LANE PICKLE COMPANY v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF EAST HARTFORD. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 218

122 A.2d 218

143 Conn. 316

SILVER LANE PICKLE COMPANY v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF EAST HARTFORD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 10, 1956.

Louis B. Warren, Corp. Counsel, East Hartford, with whom were Stewart J. Stowell, Asst. Corp. Counsel, East Hartford, and, on the brief, John D. Brennan, East Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

James D. Mirabile, East Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Alvin C. Leone, East Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.

WYNNE, Justice.

The plaintiff sought a special exception under the East Hartford zoning regulations and, under § 2538 of the General Statutes, a certificate of approval of a location for the sale of gasoline. The plaintiff's premises are located within an industrial zone in which, with certain qualifications, a gasoline service station is a permitted use. East Hartford Zoning Regs., art. 6, § 2 (1954). It was necessary under the provisions of § 2538 to obtain a certificate of approval of the proposed site before a license for the sale of gasoline could be issued by the commissioner of motor vehicles. The defendant was the local authority vested with the power to issue the certificate. § 2538. After the defendant had refused the certificate, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The court sustained the appeal, and from that judgment the defendant has appealed to this court.

Section 2539 of the General Statutes provides in part: 'No [certificate of approval] shall be issued unless * * * [the] board of appeals shall find that [the proposed] location is suitable for the sale of gasoline and other products, due consideration being given to the proximity of schools, churches, theatres or playhouses or other places of public gatherings, intersecting streets, traffic conditions, width of highway and effect of public travel, and that such use of such proposed location will not imperil the safety of the public.' The defendant concluded on the evidence before it that the plaintiff's location was not suitable for the sale of gasoline and other products because, 'due consideration being given to the width of the highway and effect on public travel,' the presence of a gasoline station there would imperil the safety of the public. The sole question on this appeal is whether the defendant was warranted in coming to that conclusion.

Certain facts are not disputed. The plaintiff is the owner of a piece of property on the south side of Silver Lane, opposite Gold Street, in East Hartford. It is in an industrial zone. The highway consists of two ten-foot concrete lanes with ten-foot shoulders. There is a bend in the road about 400 feet west of the plaintiff's property which would limit the range of vision of drivers entering the highway from it. On the appeal of the case, the court permitted the plaintiff to call as a witness Charles O. Pratt of Stratford, who testified as a civil engineer engaged in traffic...