Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1956

Shulman v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided January 27, 1956 · Inglis, Baldwin, O'Sullivan, Wynne, Daly

143 Conn. 182; 120 A.2d 550; 1956 Conn. LEXIS 146

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Fong v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals (Conn. App. Ct. 1988)
J & B Construction & Contracting Services, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)
Stamford Ridgeway Associates v. Board of Representatives (Conn. 1990)
Fong v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals (Conn. 1989)
Hillcroft Partners v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (Conn. 1987)
A & B Auto Salvage, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Conn. 1983)
Andrus v. County of Snohomish (Wash. Ct. App. 1973)
Tazza v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Conn. 1972)
Simpson v. Darien Zba, No. Cv 01 0185848 S (Jan. 15, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Brunner v. Darien Zba, No. Cv01 0185678 S (Jan. 15, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Kelley v. Hopkinton Village Precinct (N.H. 1967)
Leventhal v. Michaelis (New York Supreme Court 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

O’Sullivan, J.

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 indispensable 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 *184 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 Conn. 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.