Aurora v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of East Haven
| Decision Date | 17 May 1966 |
| Citation | 220 A.2d 277,153 Conn. 623 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | James AURORA et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF EAST HAVEN et al. |
I. Milton Widem, Hartford, for appellant (defendant Stop and Shop, inc.).
Anthony V. DeMayo, New Haven, for appellees (plaintiffs).
Before KING, C.J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, HOUSE and THIM, JJ.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Common Pleas from the action of the defendant board in granting an application of the defendant Stop and Shop, Inc., of Connecticut for a variance of the East Haven zoning ordinance regulating the distance between retail outlets selling alcoholic beverages. In Aurora v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 378, 198 A.2d 60, we found error in a judgment which sustained a plea in abatement to the appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
In those further proceedings the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant zoning board had no jurisdiction to grant the requested variance because it failed to give notice of its hearing on the application in accordance with General Statutes § 8-7. With respect to notice of a public hearing on such an application as this, § 8-7 expressly provides: 'Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in such municipality at least twice at intervals of not less than two days, the first not more than fifteen days, nor less than ten days, and the last not less than two days before such hearing.'
The record discloses that the application for the variance was filed on January 9, 1963, the hearing was held on January 22, 1963, and the notice of the hearing was published in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in the town of East Haven on three consecutive days, January 13, 14 and 15, 1963.
Obviously, this publication did not comply with the statutory requirement, and the notice was fatally defective. Lunt v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 150 Conn. 532, 536, 191 A.2d 553. Compliance with the statutory procedure for notice was a prerequisite to any valid and effective action of the zoning board in granting the requested variance. Treat v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 136, 139, 139 A.2d 601; State ex rel. Capurso v. Flis, 144 Conn. 473, 481, 133 A.2d 901. Failure to give proper notice constitutes a jurisdictional defect. Slagle v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 144 Conn. 690, 693, 137 A.2d 542; Smith v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 142...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koskoff v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Haddam
...244; Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Water Resources Commission, supra, 162 Conn. at 109, 291 A.2d 721; Aurora v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 623, 625-26, 220 A.2d 277 (1966); Edward Balf Co. v. East Granby, 152 Conn. 319, 325, 207 A.2d 58 (1965); Treat v. Town Plan & Zoning Commissio......
-
Schwartz v. Town of Hamden
...or board has been held invalid if the constructive notice given to the public was inadequate. See, e.g., Aurora v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 623, 625, 220 A.2d 277; Lunt v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 150 Conn. 532, 536, 191 A.2d 553. This was true even when the complaining party appe......
-
Romano v. Connecticut State Welfare Dept.
...limits are not jurisdictional (as they are in the case of publication of notice in zoning board hearings, e.g. Aurora v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 623, 625, 220 A.2d 277). Otherwise, anomaly would inhere in the statute allowing an appeal from the commissioner's decision only after ......
-
Cocivi v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Fairfield, 8022
...void. Brazo v. Real Estate Commission, supra; Jarvis Acres, Inc. v. Zoning Commission, supra; see, e.g., Aurora v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 623, 625, 220 A.2d 277 (1966) (notice failed to comply with mandated publication A notice is proper only if it fairly and sufficiently appris......