Beard Sand & Gravel Co. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Milford
| Decision Date | 20 May 1964 |
| Citation | 201 A.2d 464,151 Conn. 635 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BEARD SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY, Inc. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF MILFORD. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Gilbert M. Galer, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph Weiner, New Haven, and William G. Gitlitz, Milford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Richard H. Lynch, Milford, for appellee (defendant).
Before KING, C. J., MURPHY, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ., and HOUSE, Acting Justice.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas from the action of the defendant, the town planning and zoning board (25 Spec.Laws 752, § 4) of the town of Milford, in designating certain of the plaintiff's property along the east bank of the Housatonic River as a public recreation area, to be developed in the future as a riverfront park. The designation is in the town plan of development which the board, acting in its capacity as a planning commission, adopted on January 3, 1957. The court held that the defendant had not acted arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has appealed to us.
At the time that the plan of development was adopted, municipal planning in Milford was governed by No. 536 of the 1947 Special Acts. 25 Spec.Laws 752. That act made no provision for an appeal to the courts from the decisions of the board on matters relating to planning. Section 8-28 of the General Statutes provides for appeals from the official actions of planning commissions created by ordinance under § 8-19. It does not, however, apply to the actions of planning commissions created by special act. Section 8-10 was enacted to cover situations analogous to the one in this case, but it applies only to zoning matters and not to planning. The Court of Common Pleas should have dismissed the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Bardes v. Zoning Board, 141 Conn. 317, 318, 106 A.2d 160; Bartlett v. City of Rockville, 150 Conn. 428, 430, 190 A.2d 690; Carilli v. Hartford, 151 Conn. ---- (25 Conn.L.J., No. 29, p. 3), 197 A.2d 68.
There is error in the form of the judgment, it is set aside and the court is directed to render judgment dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Windsor v. Windsor Police Dept. Emp. Ass'n, Inc.
...to entertain such an appeal. Carilli v. City of Hartford, 151 Conn. 703, 704, 197 A.2d 68; Beard Sand & Gravel Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 635, 636, 201 A.2d 464; Bartlett v. City of Rockville, 150 Conn. 428, 430, 190 A.2d The only provision for appeal contained in the Mu......
- State v. DeWitt School, Inc.
-
East Side Civic Ass'n v. Planning and Zoning Commission of City of Hamden
...this appeal since, as we have stated, it applies only to zoning matters and not to planning. Beard Sand & Gravel Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 635, 636, 201 A.2d 464. The matter before the planning section of the commission did not involve a change or reclassification of zo......
-
Galliot v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hartford
...act are not repugnant. Riley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 145 Conn. 1, 4, 137 A.2d 759; Beard Sand & Gravel Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 635, 636, 201 A.2d 464. Unless there is a plain indication of an intent that the general act shall repeal the special act, the spec......