Muller v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Hamden
| Decision Date | 27 May 1958 |
| Citation | 145 Conn. 325,142 A.2d 524 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Emil MULLER et al. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF HAMDEN et al. James C. GABIANELLI et al. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF HAMDEN et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Dennis N. Garvey, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Lewis E. Caplan, Richard A. Dice and Robert W. Leavenworth, New Haven, for appellants (defendants Peters) in each case.
Anthony E. Grillo, New Haven, for appellant (named defendant) in each case.
James P. Doherty, Hamden, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph R. Greco, Hamden, for appellees (plaintiffs) in the first case.
Thomas J. O'Sullivan, New Haven, for appellees (plaintiffs) in the second case.
Before DALY, C. J., BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY, JJ., and MELLITZ, Superior Court Judge, concurring.
On June 27, 1956, the defendants Henry D. Peters, Helen B. Peters and M. Virginia Peters, hereinafter called Peters, owned an eighty-three acre tract of land in Hamden. They petitioned the zoning commission for a change of classification of approximately forty-seven acres of it from residence to business. A protest against such a change was filed by the owners, hereinafter called the Hamden Plaza interests, of the land lying immediately to the south. On this land a large suburban shopping center known as Handen Plaza is located. After public hearings, which were held upon proper notice, the commission approved the Peters petition by a majority vote. An appeal was taken to the Court of Common Pleas by the Hamden Plaza interests. A separate appeal was taken by James C. Gabianelli and other residents and owners of property in the immediate neighborhood who claimed to be aggrieved by the action of the commission. The appeals were combined for trial in the Court of Common Pleas, where they were sustained. The defendants, the commission and Peters, have appealed from the judgments rendered. During oral argument the defendants abandoned their claim that the plaintiffs in the Gabianelli appeal were not aggrieved and hence were not entitled to appeal from the action of the commission. Cum.Sup.1955, §§ 379d, 381d; Nov. 1955 Sup., § N11.
The decision of these cases requires an interpretation of § 375d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement, which is stipulated to be applicable. The statute (now Public Acts 1957, No. 662) reads as follows: 'If a protest is filed at [the public] hearing with the zoning commission against [the proposed] change signed by the owners of twenty per cent or more of the area of the lots included in such proposed change, or of the lots within five hundred feet in any direction of the property included in the proposed change, such change shall not be adopted except by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the zoning commission.' The town of Hamden has a commission of five members, so that the affirmative vote of four members would be required for the approval of a change in zone where there was a valid protest. 27 Spec.Laws 571, §§ 4, 5. Here, only three members voted in favor of the Peters petition. The question presented is whether the protesting parties owned sufficient property 'within five hundred feet in any direction of the property included in the proposed change' to require an affirmative vote of four members for approval of the petition. The Hamden Plaza interests own all the land within 500 feet to the south of the property sought to be rezoned. This is more than 20 per cent of the area within 500 feet to the south, but it is less than 20 per cent of the area within 500 feet if the perimeter of the property to be rezoned is used as a basis. It is the claim of the defendants that the words 'any direction' in the statute mean 'all or every direction,' while the plaintiffs contend that these words mean 'in any one direction,' which was the view taken by the court in holding that an affirmative vote of three-fourths, or four members of the commission, was required for approval of the Peters petition.
There is authority for both contentions. The word 'any' has a diversity of meanings and may be employed to indicate 'all' or 'every' as well as 'some' or 'one.' 3A Words and Phrases, p. 53. Its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and subject matter of the statute. In New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Stevens, 81 Conn. 16, 21, 69 A. 1052, we held it to be too comprehensive a word to receive a narrow construction. To find the sense in which it is employed in § 375d, we must look at the wording of the statute, its legislative history and its basic policy. Wilson v. Miller, 144 Conn. 212, 214, 128 A.2d 894. The original enactment authorizing zoning generally in this state was chapter 242 of the Public Acts of 1925. Section 5 of that chapter contained a provision, commonly found in zoning acts, that when a protest against a change of zone was filed by the owners of 20 per cent or more of the area of the lots included in the proposed change, or of those immediately adjacent in the rear thereof extending 100 feet therefrom, or of those directly opposite thereto extending 100 feet, a vote by more than a majority of the zoning authority was required for the adoption of the change. We had occasion to interpret this section, as amended (Cum.Sup.1939, § 132e), in Parsons v. Town of Wethersfield, 135 Conn. 24, 29, 60 A.2d 771, 4 A.L.R.2d 330. We held the words 'immediately adjacent' to mean 'adjoining or abutting.' We said that this interpretation was required in order to set a definite standard by which to compute the percentage referred to in the statute and that the statute had for its purpose the precise definition of the protesting interest, deviation from which would be a departure from an exact standard.
In 1947, the legislature changed the method of fixing the qualifications of property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Courchesne
...as intended by the legislature. See, e.g., State v. Briggs, 161 Conn. 283, 288-90, 287 A.2d 369 (1971); Muller v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 325, 329, 142 A.2d 524 (1958); Connecticut Rural Roads Improvement Assn. v. Hurley, 124 Conn. 20, 25, 197 A. 90 (1938); Corbin v. Baldwi......
-
State v. Hughes
...v. United Aircraft Corporation, 143 Conn. 191, 195, 120 A.2d 426; State ex rel. Cooley v. Kegley, supra; Muller v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 325, 331, 142 A.2d 524; Bridgeport v. Stratford, 142 Conn. 634, 641, 116 A.2d 508; Bailey v. Mars, 138 Conn. 593, 598, 87 A.2d 388; Lan......
-
Stamford Ridgeway Associates v. Board of Representatives of City of Stamford
... ... on separate zone changes contained in one zoning application or whether the board of ... Stamford approved a comprehensive rezoning plan for large areas of the city, on a neighborhood ... v. Public Utilities Commission, 170 Conn. 1, 4, 363 A.2d 1386 (1975). We ... In Muller v. Town Planning & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn ... ...
-
Kellems v. Brown
...the statute effective and workable, and not one which leads to difficult and possibly bizarre results.' Muller v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 325, 331, 142 A.2d 524, 527; Bridgeport v. Stratford, 142 Conn. 634, 644, 116 A.2d From a close examination of the entire act, it is obv......