Passero v. Zoning Commission of Town of Norwalk

• Citation: 155 Conn. 511,235 A.2d 660
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 09 November 1967
• Parties: Rudolph PASSERO et al. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF NORWALK.

Page 660

235 A.2d 660

155 Conn. 511

Rudolph PASSERO et al. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF NORWALK.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Nov. 9, 1967.

Edward J. Zamm, Special Counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Thomas A. Flaherty, Corporation Counsel, for appellant (defendant).

Jules Lang, Norwalk, with whom, on the brief, was Max R. Lepofsky, Norwalk, for appellees (plaintiffs).

Before ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM, RYAN and COVELLO, JJ.

COVELLO, Acting Justice.

The plaintiffs are the owners of certain tracts of land in Norwalk which lie partly in a light industrial zone and partly in a B residence zone. Prior to September 14, 1966, § 15 of the Norwalk zoning regulations contained, in paragraph 3, a provision of general application throughout Norwalk pertaining to the use of certain lots which are divided by a zone boundary line. ¹ On July 16, 1966, and again on July 25, 1966, the defendant, the zoning commission of Norwalk, hereinafter referred to as the commission, caused to be published in The Norwalk Hour a legal notice of a public hearing to be held on July 28, 1966, concerning certain proposed amendments to the Norwalk zoning regulations. After the public hearing, the commission voted, on September 14, 1966, to repeal paragraph 3 of § 15 of the zoning regulations. From this action, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which found the plaintiffs to be aggrieved and sustained the appeal. The commission appealed to this court.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the notice of the hearing of July 28, 1966, published in The Norwalk Hour, so far as it concerned the proposed deletion of paragraph 3 of § 15 from the zoning regulations, was adequate to meet the requirements of § 8-3 of the General Statutes concerning notice of the hearing. Section 8-3 provides: The 'zoning commission shall provide for the manner in which such regulations * * * shall be * * * established and amended or changed. No such regulation or boundary shall become effective or be established until after a public hearing in relation thereto * * * at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in the form of a legal advertisement appearing in a newspaper * * * before such hearing, and a copy of such proposed regulation or boundary shall be filed in the office of the town, city or borough clerk, as the case may be, in such municipality * * * for public inspection at least ten days before such hearing, and may be published in full in such paper. * * * The provisions of this section relative to public hearings and official notice shall apply to all changes or amendments. * * *' The purpose of the notice required by this statute is fairly and sufficiently to apprise those who may be affected by the proposed action of the nature and character of the proposed action so as to enable them to prepare intelligently for the hearing. Edward Balf Co. v. Town of East Granby, 152 Conn. 319, 325, 207 A.2d 58; see also Neuger v. Zoning Board, 145 Conn. 625, 630, 145 A.2d 738. Thus, in Edward Balf Co. v. Town of East Granby, supra, a notice which stated that a hearing was to be held to consider 'the re-adoption of the zoning and sub-division regulations' which affected the legally protected interests of every property owner in the town of East Granby was held to be sufficient notice to comply with the requirements of the statute, in view of the fact that, before the readoption of the zoning regulations, a copy of...