Treat v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Orange

• Decision Date: 06 March 1958
• Citation: 139 A.2d 601,145 Conn. 136
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Charles TREAT v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF ORANGE. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 601

139 A.2d 601

145 Conn. 136

Charles TREAT v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF ORANGE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 6, 1958.

David M. Rielly, Jr., New Haven, for for appellant (plaintiff).

Richard H. Bowerman, New Haven, with whom was Harold E. Drew, Derby, for appellee (defendant).

Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.

DALY, Associate Justice.

On October 30, 1956, the defendant, after a public hearing, voted to amend the zoning regulations of the town of Orange by increasing the minimum size of each lot in an AA residence zone from 30,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet and the minimum width from 150 to 160 feet at the street line. The plaintiff, a resident of Orange and the owner of many acres of undeveloped land in the town, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, alleging that he had pending for final approval by the defendant a plan for the subdivision of his property which conformed to the regulations previously in effect and which had received the defendant's 'tentative approval,' and that the defendant, in voting to amend the regulations, had acted unreasonably, illegally and in abuse of the discretion vested in it. The court rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. The plaintiff has appealed to this court from that judgment.

Section 375d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement was in effect in October, 1956. It empowered zoning commissions to provide for the manner in which zoning regulations and the boundaries of zoning districts were to be 'established and amended or changed.' It stated: 'No such regulation or boundary shall be effective or be established until after a public hearing in relation thereto held by the zoning commission or a committee thereof * * * 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 a newspaper having a substantial circulation in [the] municipality at least twice at intervals of not less than two days, the first not more than fifteen days, nor less than ten days, and the last not less than two days 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.'

Notice of the time and place of the public hearing held on October 30, 1956, was published in a newspaper, the 'New Haven Evening Register', on October 20, 1956, and October 26, 1956. The plaintiff claims that the first notice was published less than ten days before the public hearing and that, consequently, the requirements of the statute were not complied with. The provision for publishing the first notice 'not less than ten days * * * before such hearing,' coupled with the provision that 'a copy of such proposed regulation * * * 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,' evidences the intention of the framers of the statute that the period should be ten full or clear days. No other construction will give mean-to these words of the statute. When so many days 'at least' are given to do an act, or 'not less than' so many days must intervene, both the terminal days are excluded. Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Gilman, 100 Conn. 81, 85, 123 A. 32. As ten full days did not intervene between the publication of the first notice and the public hearing on ...