Coombs v. Larson
| Decision Date | 07 November 1930 |
| Citation | 112 Conn. 236,152 A. 297 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | COOMBS et al. v. LARSON. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge.
Action by Margaret D. Coombs and others against Andrew G. Larson for an injunction restraining defendant from interfering with the business of the plaintiff McDermott in the town of West Hartford and from interfering with the lawful rights of the plaintiffs, and tried to the court. Judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiffs.
No error.
Edward J. Daly and Cornelius D. Shea, both of Hartford, for appellants.
Richard H. Deming, of Hartford, for appellee.
Ernest L. Averill, Deputy Atty. Gen., and H. Roger Jones, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State, amici curiæ .
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.
In the Public Act of 1923, chapter 279, the General Assembly authorized the town of West Hartford and seven other cities and towns, each acting by its authority, and having power to adopt ordinances or regulations for its government, to appoint a zoning commission with a term of office determined by ordinance or regulation, and in the same manner to appoint a board of adjustment. The zoning commission was authorized to adopt regulations defining boundaries of districts, size and number of stories of buildings, their location, the percentage of the lot which might be occupied by, and the use which should be made of, such buildings. The act also provided that the regulations should be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan designed to prevent a close arrangement or construction of buildings upon the streets, to secure safety from fire, to avoid congestion of population, and to promote the general welfare in living and working conditions, and that they should not be adopted until a copy had been filed in the office of the city or town clerk at least fifteen days and a public hearing held thereon after the giving of a specified notice. It further provided that upon the protest of 20 per centum of the area of lots affected the regulations should not be adopted except by a vote of four of the five members of the commission, and that any person aggrieved by the regulation might appeal to the board of adjustment which should hear the appeal, and might modify, amend, or repeal any regulation, and might appeal from the board to a named court.
On or about July 17, 1923, the town of West Hartford, acting through its town council, appointed a zoning commission which has been in continual existence ever since, and on March 4, 1924, filed a comprehensive plan or map and zoning regulations in the office of the town clerk in West Hartford, which remained there for more than fifteen days, and thereafter held public hearings upon the same. On March 22, 1924, the commission voted to adopt the plan and regulations in substantially the same form and with the same layout as set forth in the plan and regulations which had thus been on file for more than the required fifteen days. All of the procedure taken as above was that prescribed in chapter 279. On March 25, 1924, the town council of West Hartford voted to approve these zoning regulations.
The land in question was owned at the time of the filing of the comprehensive map and regulations by Anna I. Redding, and then and ever since has been zoned for residence purposes only. On March 7, 1929, Anna I. Redding conveyed this property to the plaintiff Marguerite D. Coombs, who did not record the deed until June 7, 1929. On April 8, 1929, Anna I. Redding, although not then the owner of the property, petitioned the commission to have it zoned for business. At the hearing before the commission on the petition, no claim was made that the map and regulations were not legally adopted. The petition was denied on May 21, 1929, and no appeal was taken by either Anna I. Redding or the plaintiff Coombs, although each had an opportunity so to do. The town council has on several occasions since June 24, 1925, acted upon appeals from actions of the commission in connection with the zoning map or zoning regulations.
On August 2, 1929, the plaintiff McDermott entered into a contract of a lease of this property with the plaintiff Coombs, and thereafter entered into its possession, and on this date the plaintiff McDermott opened thereon it gift shop, and ever since has conducted, a business in a district zoned only for residence. On August 17, 1929, the defendant Larson, who was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, the building inspector of the town of West Hartford, gave written notice to the plaintiff's to cease conducting this business on or before August 31, 1929, because the business was located in a residence zone. On August 31, 1929, the plaintiffs procured a temporary injunction restraining Larson from carrying out his written notice to the plaintiffs.
The zoning regulations, except as amended from time to time as provided by law, ever since their adoption have been those under which the inhabitants of this town have lived and regulated their affairs. Each of the plaintiffs knew at the time the gift shop was started that it was in an area zoned only for residence purposes.
In 1925 the General Assembly passed a general zoning law known as chapter 242 of the Public Acts of 1925, and also passed a special law for West Hartford known as chapter 469 of the Special Laws of 1925, both of which laws were signed on June 24, 1925, more than three days after the adjournment of the General Assembly.
Section 20 of chapter 242 of the Public Acts of 1925 provides as follows:
Section 21 of chapter 469 of the Special Laws of 1925, p. 934, provides as follows:
The trial court, in rendering judgment in favor of the defendant, ordered the temporary injunction continued until the final determination of the case, and reached the following conclusions:
(1) The zoning map and regulations adopted in pursuance of the 1923 statute are legal, and have been since their adoption, and still are in effect.
(2) To hold that such plan or map and regulations were not legally adopted would result in irreparable loss to property owners, and would create an extremely difficult situation in the town and among its people, because of the fact that for many years the inhabitants have lived and regulated their affairs upon the supposition that the act was valid.
(3) The defendant Larson had authority on August 17, 1929, to order the plaintiffs to cease the business conducted by them in a residence zone.
(4) It was not necessary for the town council of West Hartford, either under the general zoning law of 1925 or under the special law of 1925, to hold a public hearing to pass an enactment, by law or ordinance relative to zoning regulations which had been adopted and approved in March, 1924.
(5) The special session of 1929 either validated or re-enacted a comprehensive zoning act which had been legally approved prior to the decision in the McCook Case, 109 Conn. 621, 147 A. 126, 64 A.L.R. 1453.
(6) The plaintiffs did not question the validity of the zoning regulations until they thought they could evade them because of the McCook Case.
(7) If the regulations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spector Motor Service v. Walsh
...are Holley v. Sunderland, 110 Conn. 80, 86, 147 A. 300, 302; Young v. West Hartford, 111 Conn. 27, 149 A. 205, 207; Coombs v. Larson, 112 Conn. 236, 246, 152 A. 297; Chudnov v. Board of Appeals, 113 Conn. 49, 51, 154 A. 161, 164; and National Transp. Co. v. Toquet, 123 Conn. 468, 196 A. 344......
-
Florentine v. Town of Darien
...of the zoning ordinance. See Hutchison v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 138 Conn. 247, 252, 83 A.2d 201. The rule laid down in Coombs v. Larson, 112 Conn. 236, 152 A. 297, would have no application where a party had sought a variance under a zoning ordinance. In that case the plaintiff, after th......
-
Moscowitz v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Sherman
...restriction placed on the plaintiff's property. Although we acknowledge that this is an important consideration; see Coombs v. Larson, 112 Conn. 236, 152 A. 297 (1931); due to the defendant's failure to pursue this aspect in the trial court by introducing evidence regarding the existence an......
-
Connecticut Emp. Union Independent, Inc. v. Connecticut State Emp. Ass'n, Inc.
...in embarrassment to the operations of government. See Wood v. Wilton, 156 Conn. 304, 310, 240 A.2d 904 (1968); Coombs v. Larson, 112 Conn. 236, 247, 152 A. 297 (1930). V CSEA has cross appealed and challenges both the injunctive relief granted and the award of $5450 damages. With regard to ......