Wasicki v. Zoning Bd. of City of Stamford
| Decision Date | 24 May 1972 |
| Citation | 163 Conn. 166,302 A.2d 276 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Roman WASICKL et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF the CITY OF STAMFORD et al. |
Julius B. Kuriansky, Stamford, for appellants (defendant Newfield Associates and others).
Theodore Godlin, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom, on the brief, was J. Robert Bromley, Corp. Counsel, for appellant (named defendant).
Allan S. Mall, Norwalk, with whom, on the brief, was Abraham D. Slavitt, Norwalk, for appellees (plaintiffs).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and RYAN, SHAPIRO, LOISELLE and FitzGERALD, JJ.
On August 5, 1969, the defendant Newfield Associates, hereinafter referred to as Newfield, as owner, and the Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Franchise, filed application No. 69-024 requesting approval to amend site plans for a restaurant in the Newfield Green shopping center in the city of Stamford originally approved by the defendant zoning board of the city of Stamford on September 25, 1968, under application No. 68-028. The applicants sought approval for the relocation of a restaurant in the shopping center. On the granting of the application the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Common Pleas and from the judgment of that court sustaining the appeal the defendant board and the defendants Newfield and Franchise have appealed to this court.
The plaintiffs own real property in the immediate vicinity of the Newfield Green shopping center, which is located on the easterly side of Newfield Avenue. The defendant Newfield is the owner of the premises on which the shopping center is located. It is situated in a B-D 'Designed Business District' as defined in § 9 of the Stamford zoning regulations. On July 29, 1964, the defendant board approved the application of Newfield to construct the shopping center on the premises. One of the uses authorized by the decision of the board was the operation of a restaurant. Section 9-D-1 of the zoning regulations requires a public hearing concerning board approval of the location of all buildings in a designed district. On September 25, 1968, the board approved the location and design of a restaurant which was to be erected by Newfield for the defendant Franchise in the southerly section of the shopping center. The prospective lessee was a national restaurant chain known as McDonald's. On March 17, 1969, Newfield applied to the board for permission to relocate the restaurant building in the northerly area of the shopping center, directly adjacent to a gasoline filling station in the shopping center. This application was denied on the ground that the original site was appropriate and that the new location would conflict with the existing gasoline filling station with respect to traffic flow. Thereafter, on August 5, 1969, Newfield filed a new and revised application (No. 69-024) for relocation of the restaurant. Pursuant to § 9-D-1, the board held the required public hearing on the application on September 10, 1969. Property owners in the area voiced substantial opposition to the application at this hearing. The board first considered the new application in an executive session on November 12, 1969. The minutes of that session contained statements that Newfield had failed to comply with a number of the conditions originally imposed by the board in connection with the approval of the site for a shopping center in 1964. The Stamford building inspector was in attendance at the meeting and recommended to the board that the fastest way to get the applicants to comply with these conditions would be for them to meet with the board and to tell them that the board would not consider approving any additional requests for the shopping center until they complied with all requirements set forth in the original approval. The board then voted to defer action on the application. November 19, 1969, was set for an executive session in order to meet with Harold Hoffman, one of the Newfield partners and with the attorney for the applicants. Both the attorney and Hoffman appeared at this meeting at the request of the board. Neither the plaintiffs nor any of the opponents of the application were given notice of, or an invitation to attend, the November 19 session. At the meeting, an extended colloquy took place between the board and Newfield's representatives concerning numerous failures of Newfield to satisfy the various conditions imposed at the time of the board's approval of the original shopping center. The Newfield representatives offered explanations for the defaults and, in some instances, promised corrective action. A number of conditions previously prescribed were discussed including excessive use of signs on the exterior or interior side window glass in stores; the use of loudspeakers and other noisemaking devices; exposed storage of refuse and discarded material; merchandising and storing of products outside the buildings; and the failure of Newfield to complete the presently existing northend wall of the shopping center with finished brick masonry, or to complete construction of the remainder of the building as originally approved, within one year and nine months from March 9, 1967, which would be November 9, 1968. After the Newfield representatives left the meeting a majority of the board voted to approve application No. 69-024 subject to five major conditions: (1) the installation of a traffic control system at one of the exits; (2) the erection of a brick wall between the restaurant and the gasoline filling station; (3) certain limitations on exterior lighting; (4) the restaurant to be limited to 'sit-down' customers only; and (5) compliance with conditions numbered 1 through 6 of the board's certificate of approval under application No. 68-028. The final limitation was that the restaurant should comply with paragraph 9 of the Stamford zoning regulations pertaining to 'Designed Districts.' On these facts the court concluded, inter alia: (1) that the executive session of November 19, 1969, wherein Newfield's representative attempted to enlist support for the removal petition (No. 69-024) was an extension of, and a supplement to, the public hearing of September 10, 1969; (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mackenzie v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Monroe
...cases we have held that the function of creating zones and adopting regulations is essentially legislative.” Wasicki v. Zoning Board, 163 Conn. 166, 171, 302 A.2d 276 (1972). For that reason, a commission's decision to enact a floating zone or planned development district is legislative in ......
-
MacKenzie v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Monroe
...cases we have held that the function of creating zones and adopting regulations is essentially legislative.'' Wasicki v. Zoning Board, 163 Conn. 166, 171, 302 A.2d 276 (1972). For that reason, a commission's decision to enact a floating zone or planned development district is legislative in......
-
Michel v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Monroe, 10766
...in explanation or rebuttal. Blaker v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, 212 Conn. at 477-78, 562 A.2d 1093; Wasicki v. Zoning Board, 163 Conn. 166, 172-73, 302 A.2d 276 (1972); Carlson v. Fisher, 18 Conn.App. 488, 503, 558 A.2d 1029 (1989). Here, the inland wetlands commission held a pub......
-
A. P. & W. Holding Corp. v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of City of Milford
...in its administrative capacity, and its actions were governed by chapter IV § 16.F of the zoning regulations. Wasicki v. Zoning Board, 163 Conn. 166, 171, 302 A.2d 276. The board was powerless to act unless it first found that the amendments were: (1) 'necessitated by field conditions' or (......