Rubino & Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

200 A.2d 482, 151 Conn. 706
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided April 22, 1964·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff seeks a certificate of approval for use as a motor vehicle junk yard of premises on which it now operates a general junk yard business as a nonconforming use in a No. 1 light industrial zone in Norwalk. In this zone, no junk yards or motor vehicle junk yards are permitted. Norwalk Zoning Ordinance, §§ 5 (37), 6 (17) (1929, as amended). A zoning board of appeals, in acting on an application for a certificate of approval of a location for a motor vehicle junk yard, must first certify that the proposed location is not within a district restricted against motor vehicle junk yards before it can consider the suitability of the location for the proposed use. General [707]*707Statutes § 21-16. As the premises in the instant case are within a district restricted against motor vehicle junk yards, the zoning board of appeals could not have granted the plaintiff’s application for a certificate of approval. Petrillo v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 147 Conn. 469, 472, 162 A.2d 508.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rubino & Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 200 A.2d 482, 151 Conn. 706 (Colo. 1964).

200 A.2d 482 (Rubino & Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Orange Plan Zon. Comm'n v. Clemens, No. Cv90 03 15 46s (May 23, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 4686 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)