Hutchison v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Stratford
| Citation | 83 A.2d 201,138 Conn. 247 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 14 August 1951 |
| Parties | HUTCHISON v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF TOWN OF STRATFORD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Robert E. Trevethan, Bridgeport, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Milton H. Hausman, Bridgeport, for the appellee (named defendant).
Adrian W. Maher, Bridgeport, for the appellee (defendant Ahern).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ. BROWN, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from the defendant board of zoning appeals of Stratford. By its decision the defendant board had affirmed the action of the planning and zoning board granting permission to the defendant Ahern to construct and use a building on Stratford Road for a restaurant with full liquor license privileges. Whether the permit so issued by the planning board was valid or a nullity is the question decisive of the present appeal to this court.
Ahern's premises are located on the westerly side of Stratford Road, fronting 360 feet on the highway and being 700 feet in depth. The Bridgeport airport bounds them on the north and west and St. Joseph's Cemetery on the south. Prior to March, 1946, the property was zoned as residence A and B. On February 15, 1946, Ahern petitioned the planning board to change the property to a light industrial zone. This petition was duly noticed for hearing and was heard by the planning board on March 20, 1946. After the public hearing, the planning board rendered a decision by which it changed the zone of so much of the property as bordered Stratford Road, to a depth of 500 feet, from a residence A and B zone to a business zone No. 1, and changed the remaining 200 feet to a light industrial zone. On February 15, 1946, and continuously ever since, the zoning regulations of the town of Stratford have provided in paragraph A of § 7 that alcoholic liquors can be sold only in a business zone.
In November, 1949, Ahern petitioned the planning board under paragraph K of § 7 of the regulations for its approval of a restaurant with full liquor license privileges on that portion of his premises which had been rezoned to business No. 1. After hearing duly held on December 7, 1949, the petition was granted. The plaintiff's appeal to the defendant board on the ground, among others, that the planning board's decision was 'illegal' and 'in violation of the express provisions of Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance' was dismissed, as already stated. On the appeal from this decision, the court concluded that the validity of the action of the planning board in 1946 in changing the zone from residence A and B to business No. 1 could not be determined in the form of action adopted by the plaintiff in this proceeding and that the defendant board in refusing to reverse the action of the planning board in granting Ahern's petition did not act arbitrarily, illegally or in the abuse of its discretion.
Whether the defendant board acted illegally depends upon whether or not the premises in question were located in a business zone. If they were not, the planning board by reason of paragraph A of § 7 of the regulations, was without authority to issue the permit, and in consequence the defendant board could not legally approve such action. The regulations expressly provide the method for establishing any change in zone. Paragraph A of § 20 authorizes the planning board, either on its own motion or on application, to 'establish new zone boundaries or amend, change or abandon existing zone boundaries in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.' Section 17 provides that such changes may be made by the planning board under the following conditions and procedure: A change of zone boundaries may seriously affect the property rights of owners of land within the area involved. Naturally, provision must be made for properly safeguarding rights likely to be so jeopardized. The purpose of the provisions quoted as to notice and hearing is to meet this requirement.
Compliance with these provisions is a prerequisite to any valid and effective change in zone boundaries. National Transportation Co. v. Toquet, 123 Conn. 468, 475, 196 A. 344; Alderman v. Town of West Haven, 124 Conn. 391, 397, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Lyme, SC 19726
...prior to adopting plan, and plan was not submitted to planning commission as required by statute); Hutchison v. Board of Zoning Appeals , 138 Conn. 247, 251, 83 A.2d 201 (1951) ("No notice was given and no hearing was had ... as to a change from a residence to a business zone. The only noti......
-
Florentine v. Town of Darien
...to him, because in doing so he has only sought the full and complete operation 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 s......
-
Koskoff v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Haddam
...supra, 142 Conn. at 94, 111 A.2d 552; Couch v. Zoning Commission, 141 Conn. 349, 356, 106 A.2d 173 (1954); Hutchison v. Board of Zoning Appeals, supra, 138 Conn. at 251, 83 A.2d 201; Hartford Trust Co. v. West Hartford, 84 Conn. 646, 650, 81 A. 244 (1911); Bombero v. Planning & Zoning Commi......
-
Hartford Elec. Light Co. v. Water Resources Commission
...the issue will be entertained. Failure to give proper notice constitutes a jurisdictional defect. Hutchison v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 138 Conn. 247, 251, 83 A.2d 201. Such a defect would result in lack of due process of law. Hartford Trust Co. v. West Hartford, 84 Conn. 646, 650, 81 A. 24......