Demarest v. Zoning Comm'n Of Town Of Plainville

Decision Date06 May 1948
Citation134 Conn. 572,59 A.2d 293
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesDEMAREST et al. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF TOWN OF PLAINVILLE et al.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; FitzGerald, Judge.

Action by Clarence A. Demarest and another against Zoning Commission of Town of Plainville and others to review action of defendant commission in banning a change of zone. From judgment erasing the appeal from action of defendant commission, the plaintiffs appeal.

No error.

Margaret P. Camp and Mortimer H. Camp, both of New Britain, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Arnold M. Sweig, of Plainville, for appellee (defendant Zoning Commission).

William N. DeRosier, of Bristol (Arthur T. Nichols, of Plainville, on the brief), for appellees (defendants Harrison).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Common Pleas from a decision of the zoning commission of the town of Plainville under an act passed by the General Assembly at its last session. General Statutes Sup.1947, § 121i et seq. The trial court, on motion of the individual defendants, who appeared solely to contest the jurisdiction, erase the appeal on the ground that the act did not apply to these proceedings, which were begun before it took effect. The plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

The 1947 act begins with a provision that any town, city or borough may by vote of its legislative body adopt the provisions of the act and exercise through a zoning commission the powers specified in the law. On September 29, 1947, the town of Plainville, in which zoning had previously been in effect, voted to adopt the act. The act provides that, upon its adoption, all zones and zoning regulations legally adopted under the statutes previously in force shall remain in effect. It makes somewhat different provisions as to towns than it does as to cities or boroughs, and we are concerned only with those affecting towns.

The complaint alleges: In July, 1947, J. E. and R. S. Harrison applied to the commission to change the zoning ordinance of the town so that a tract of land owned by them, then in a residence B zone, should be in part in a business and in part in an industrial zone. The application was heard on July 28, 1947. On or before that date, the plaintiff property owners filed with the commission a written protest sufficient to require a unanimous decision of the commission under the provisions of the statute then in effect, as well as under the 1947 act. General Statutes Cum.Sup.1939, § 132e; Sup.1947, § 123i. The 1947 act took effect on October 1, 1947. On November 3, 1947, the commission voted to grant the application made by the Harrisons, with provision that it should become effective on November 12, 1947, but without any publication in a newspaper having a circulation in the town, as required by § 123i of the 1947 act. The change was approved by a vote of three in favor and two against it. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from the decision of the commission.

The statutes as they stood previous to October 1, 1947, provided for appeals from zoning boards of appeal but not from zoning commissions. If the trial court was right in holding that the 1947 act did not apply to this proceeding, it had no jurisdiction of the appeal and the judgment erasing it was correct. Long v. Zoning Commission, 133 Conn. 248, 252, 50 A.2d 172. Whether a statute will be given a retrospective effect presents primarily a question of legislative...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Yorkdale Corp. v. Powell
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 1964
    ...after a statement of the Maryland law.) In a similar situation as ours, it was stated by Chief Justice Maltbie in Demarest et al. v. Zoning Comm., 134 Conn. 572, 59 A.2d 293, 'the matter becomes one of presumed intent [of the legislative body.].' (Emphasis added.) And Chief Judge Lehman, fo......
  • Zucker v. Vogt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • December 19, 1961
    ...retroactive effect in this case. Massa v. Nastri, 125 Conn. 144, 146-147, 3 A.2d 839, 120 A.L.R. 939 (1939); Demarest v. Zoning Commissioner, 134 Conn. 572, 575, 59 A.2d 293 (1948); Field v. Witt Tire Co. of Atlanta, Ga. (2 Cir., 1952), 200 F.2d 74, The motion to limit recovery is denied. M......
  • Lavieri v. Ulysses
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1962
    ...intent may not, then, in all instances stop with the determination that a statute concerns procedure alone.' Demarest v. Zoning Commission, 134 Conn. 572, 575, 59 A.2d 293, 294. Here the 1959 act, in a sense, affects the remedy, because it curtails the amount of recovery previously permitte......
  • Jones Destruction, Inc. v. Upjohn
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1971
    ... ... two years from the date such lien was filed with such town clerk and then proceeds therewith to and obtains final ... Demarest v. Zoning Commission, 134 Conn. 572, 575, 59 A.2d 293. In ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT