Stavola v. Bulkeley
| Decision Date | 03 December 1947 |
| Citation | 56 A.2d 645,134 Conn. 186 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STAVOLA et al. v. BULKELEY et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Molloy, Judge.
Appeal by John R. Stavola and others from the action of William H. Bulkeley and others, constituting Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Hartford, in granting the application of Nellie Salvatore varying the provisions of the zoning ordinances so as to permit the use of certain premises as a restaurant selling alcoholic liquor, brought to the Court of Common Pleas and tried to the court. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal.
Error and case remanded.
Appellees' motion for reargument was denied.
John P. Cotter, and John W. Joy, both of Hartford, for appellants.
Frank R. Odlum, of Hartford, (Samuel H. Aron, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellees.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
The defendant zoning board of appeals of Hartford on September 4, 1945, granted the application of Nellie Salvatore for permission to conduct a restaurant where all kinds of alcoholic liquor could be sold, at variance with the provisions of a zoning ordinance requiring 1000-foot intervals between such restaurants, taverns and grills. The plaintiffs, neighboring property owners, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed the appeal. This is an appeal from that judgment.
The facts sufficient for a consideration of the issues upon which we decide the case may be summarized as follows: The premises are at 1309 Albany Avenue, within a business zone. Previous applications for permits had been made by prior owners of the property in 1942 and 1944 and had been denied. From the transcript of the minutes of the board it appears that the permit was granted because ‘it will provide a much needed restaurant of this kind in the neighborhood.’ There is a tavern at 1444 Albany Avenue, 650 feet from the applicant's premises, and a grill at 1164 Albany Avenue with an all-liquor permit, 700 feet from the premises.
When the application was granted, § 20-3 of the Municipal Code of 1941 provided that no building in a business zone should be used for certain purposes, including those of a restaurant selling alcoholic liquor or beer, except as permitted in § 20-7. Section 20-7 contained special regulations relating to restaurants, taverns and grills and as amended read in part as follows: ‘In a business zone, no building shall be used * * * for a restaurant selling alcoholic liquor or beer, if any part of such premises is situated: On any part of a lot having a frontage, on either side of a public street, within one thousand feet as measured along the center line of such street, of any lot or plot having a frontage on such street and used for the purpose of a restaurant selling alcoholic liquor or beer, a tavern or a grill.’ The defendant board contends, however, that it had authority to vary this ordinance by virtue of another provision in the ordinances. Subsection (f) of § 20-17 contained a provision that the zoning board of appeals might The defendants' claims of proof were based upon this section, and that was the theory upon which the case was tried. We follow that theory. Conn. App. Proc. § 22.
The trial court concluded that there was a sufficient change in the neighborhood of the applicants' premises to justify the board in reversing its former decisions and granting the application; that ‘there was practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship present’ in the case; that the variance was within the general intent and purpose of zoning;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helbig v. Zoning Commission of Noank Fire Dist.
...523, 525, 152 A.2d 629 (1959); Treat v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 406, 409, 143 A.2d 448 (1958); Stavola v. Bulkeley, 134 Conn. 186, 189, 56 A.2d 645 (1947); Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 42. It is true that the August appeal was taken to the defendant zoning board of appeals fro......
-
Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich
...v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 16, 60 A.2d 510; Delaney v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 134 Conn. 240, 56 A.2d 647; Stavola v. Bulkeley, 134 Conn. 186, 56 A.2d 645; Bishop v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 133 Conn. 614, 53 A.2d 659; Kamerman v. LeRoy, 133 Conn. 232, 50 A.2d 175; Devaney v. Bo......
-
Celentano v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Hartford
...v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 Conn. 16, 60 A.2d 510; Delaney v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 134 Conn. 240, 56 A.2d 647; Stavola v. Bulkeley, 134 Conn. 186, 56 A.2d 645; Kamerman v. LeRoy, 133 Conn. 232, 50 A.2d 175; Benson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 129 Conn. 280, 27 A.2d 389; Thayer v. Boa......
-
Wadell v. Bd. Of Zoning Appeals Of City Of New Haven
...and a consequent interruption of the school now being conducted in them during the time required for building. In Stavola v. Bulkeley, 134 Conn. 186, 190, 56 A.2d 645, 647, we said: ‘To justify a variation under such a provision [as that in the ordinance before us] in a zoning ordinance, it......