Judges: Maltbie, Avery, Brown, Jennings, Ells
Filed Date: 5/8/1941
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/3/2024
The plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court from a decision of the commissioner of state police, who, on June 20, 1940, granted a certificate to operate an open air motion picture theatre with a seating capacity of nine hundred and eighty-eight persons, *Page 22 in the back yard of premises located on Main Street in Middletown, subject to carefully specified requirements relating to matters of public safety. He had previously, on July 28, 1939, upon a similar petition, rendered a decision that a certificate of approval would be issued for a capacity of three hundred persons, contingent upon similar safety provisions. The limitation as to capacity was made because of a ruling by the city's legal adviser that the open air theatre was a building within the provisions of the city building code, and subject to a limitation of three hundred patrons. No appeal was taken from the commissioners decision.
In the interim between the commissioner's two decisions, as the result of a mandamus action brought to the Superior Court, to which the plaintiff were not parties, the court held that the theatre was not a building within the building code, and was not subject to its limitation of three hundred patrons. No material changes in physical circumstances had occurred, and a principal question is whether the effect of this Superior Court decision created a new and material circumstance warranting the change in decision by the commissioner.
The plaintiffs contend that the action on the 1939 application was final, and that in the absence of an appeal therefrom the decision is conclusive. It is well settled that while an administrative officer or board may review a decision and revoke action once duly taken, it should not ordinarily do so; otherwise there would be no finality to the proceeding and the result would be subject to change at the whim of the officer or board or due to the effect of influence exerted upon them, or other undesirable elements tending to uncertainty and impermanence. Rommell v. Walsh,
The parties to this appeal concede that the question whether this theatre is a building within the meaning of the building code determines whether a certificate for a theatre having a seating capacity of more than three hundred could properly be granted. The various authorities accord many meanings to the word "building," but it is a sound rule that recourse must be had to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each particular case and the provisions of a statute using the word. 12 C.J.S. 378, 379. This yard is enclosed only by *Page 24
fences. There is no roof. The seats are attached to sleepers set in the ground. In front of them is the screen and to the rear of them is the projection booth. It is difficult to believe that these fences, which are not walls intended or adapted to support a roof, constitute a building as that word is ordinarily defined. Small v. Parkway Auto Supplies, Inc.,
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
St. Patrick's Church Corporation v. Daniels ( 1931 )
Sharp v. Zoning Bd. of App., Easton, No. Cv91 028 50 52s (... ( 1994 )
Radcliff v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv 121852 S (Jun. ... ( 1993 )
Wright v. Z. Bd. of App., T. of Mansfield, No. Cv 97 64113 ... ( 1998 )
Purnell v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission ( 2022 )
Shea v. State Employees' Retirement Commission ( 1976 )
Mynyk v. Board of Zoning Appeals ( 1963 )
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals ( 1955 )
Spencer v. Board of Zoning Appeals ( 1954 )
Brook Ledge, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission ( 1958 )
Cicala v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act ( 1971 )
Eastern Connecticut Cable Television, Inc. v. Town of ... ( 1980 )
Degarmo v. Liquor Control Commission ( 1952 )
Pinchbeck v. Planning and Zoning Comm'n, No. Cv99-420753 (... ( 2000 )