New Britain herald., 1929-05-28

put in the ordinance to affect this particular plot?" Attorney Gaffney asked.
 The inspector replied: That is the one we had in mind"
 For purposes of the record, the in- spector was asked if he had refused permits for filling stations on the plot and he answered that he had on two occasions.
 Why Limitation Was Gut
 Corporation Counsel kirkham asked why the limitation was re- duced tn certain of the business areas. and the inspector said the protest of one large property own CT, in particular, and several others in lesser degree, had been re- sponsiblc.
 Was the fact that churches will be In session on Sundays when fac tories are closed one of the condi- tions which prompted the refusal to cut the limitation in the indus- trial Hone?" Judge kirkham asked. The inspector could not recall that this argument had been used.
 Again asked why this particular plot had been ruled against, the in- spector said 1t was in deference to the congregations of nearby churches.
 Questioning by Judge kirkham brought out that a restrictive ordi- nance was in effect just prior to xoning and that filling stations were not permitted anywhere within 200 feet of churches and public build ings.
 Drive at OH Company
 Alderman Nair. the next witness, was asked point blank if the Stan dard Oil company's plot was the one in mind when the provisions of the industrial district were estab- ltshed. and he answered that such was the case.
 As chairman of the ordinance committee at the time. he ar- ranged for meetinga ward by ward, and the wishes of each dis trict were considered and embodied in the law. The people of the Franklin square district were op. posed to . filling station on the plot and for that reason it was de- cided that a limitation of 200 feet would be imposed. the alderman pointed out.
 He mentioned Mir Hatch as the property owner who objected to a similar limitation in other areas and said the change was made on that account.
 Bought Plot For Gas Station William J. Boylan. supervisor of service stations for the Standard O,l Co.,, testified as to the purchase of the plot in question for the purpose of erecting a gasoline filling station. He presented a certificate giving the company permission to sell gasoline. the permit being dated September z1, 1923.
 Nias Jean Cochrane, deputy town clerk, read ordinances which pre- ceded the adoption of the zoning law and those which amended the act.
 Judge Kirkham brought out that there were ordinance imposing greater restrictions before zonins was adopted than those which now obtain.
 Testimony was introduced to show that an attempt was made to lower the rcstriction as to gasoline filling stations In industrial districs and that, after being adopted by the conn., mon council and vetoed by the may or. the veto was sustained. The may or's veto message was read. It sci forth that the change could help but one property owner and would be responsible for very unsatisfac. tory conditions on . main artery oi traRIc. berdered by public buildinss In hts concluding statements tt the court. Attorney 0aRney, pointed out that the plet was purchased al ste fer . gasoline filling station that AA leeisaatioa enacted, includ. ing the mayors veto indicated { drive against the plot in question Tho lawyer argued that the restric. tions Of . ssns law provide greate. protection of residence and business areas than in industrial sone where
 anything but . public nuisance ma, be placed yet it is possible tr build . saseltne filling station in s residence zone opposite the Standard l on company's plot.
 Judge kirkham is here today at. tempting to justify an action which re. himself. knew should not have been taken.' the lawyer concluded. The New Britain corporation coun. sel pointed to the wording of the en. aoline act by which 4enine was e. tabohAed. This sives the city the rasht ts make different restrictions