Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-3
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-3
(1949 Rev., S. 838; 1951, 1953, June, 1955, S. 375d; 1957, P.A. 662; 1959, P.A. 452; 577, S. 4; 614, S. 3; February, 1965, P.A. 622, S. 1; 1971, P.A. 862, S. 1; P.A. 77-450, S. 1; 77-509, S. 2; P.A. 78-104, S. 4; P.A. 80-177; P.A. 82-90; P.A. 84-147, S. 1; 84-174; P.A. 86-236, S. 1; P.A. 87-215, S. 2, 7; 87-371, S. 2, 5; 87-474, S. 2; 87-533, S. 7, 14; P.A. 88-105, S. 1; P.A. 89-277, S. 2; 89-356, S. 10, 11; P.A. 91-153 , S. 1 ; P.A. 93-19 , S. 1 , 3 ; P.A. 00-145 , S. 2 ; P.A. 02-74 , S. 1 ; 02-77 , S. 1 ; P.A. 03-144 , S. 1 ; 03-177 , S. 1 ; P.A. 06-20 , S. 1 ; P.A. 07-102 , S. 1 ; P.A. 08-38 , S. 1 ; P.A. 09-181 , S. 1 ; P.A. 11-5 , S. 1 ; 11-79 , S. 1 ; P.A. 12-182 , S. 1 .)
When protested, change by town zoning commission requires vote of all members, not merely of those present at meeting. 123 C. 282 . Change invalid if notice not in compliance with statute. Id., 472. Cited. Id., 541; 125 C. 720 . Failure to state on record reason for change of regulation does not invalidate board's action. 129 C. 287 . Ordinance invalid for failure to give notice and hold hearing. 131 C. 649 . Cited. 133 C. 594 . Does not apply to a proceeding pending on effective date of act. 134 C. 572 . Husband of applicant sat at meeting and voted for application; held change of zone is invalid. 135 C. 1. Words "immediately adjacent" mean adjoining or abutting. Id., 24. Cited. 136 C. 94 . Special act controls in West Hartford at least as to procedural matters. 138 C. 497 . Cited. 141 Conn. 349 . Zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with "a comprehensive plan" which is a general plan to control and direct use and development of property in municipality or large part thereof by dividing it into districts according to present and potential use of properties. 142 Conn. 265 . Zoning commission need not set out reasons for amendment and change of zoning regulations in language which would satisfy meticulous criticism of a legal expert. Id., 580. Nothing in section permits vote of town meeting to approve any amendment adopted by zoning commission; power to provide for manner in which zoning regulations may be changed is vested exclusively in commission and cannot be delegated to town meeting. 143 Conn. 448 . Compliance with statutory procedure was prerequisite to any valid and effective date change in zonal boundaries. 144 C. 475 . Words "immediately adjacent in the rear", as similarly used in special act, construed. Id., 677. Adequacy of notice. Id., 690. In computing notice period, both terminal days are excluded when such phrases as "at least" and "not less than" are used; compliance with statutory procedure was a prerequisite to any valid amendment of, or change in, zoning regulations. 145 C. 136 . Legislative history; words "in any direction" mean "all or every direction" (former statute). Id., 325. Zone change in substantial conformity with comprehensive plan held not spot zoning; prior conferences with applicant and experts did not compel conclusion that commission made up its mind before public hearing. Id., 435. Regulation which does not clearly state boundaries of zone not ipso facto a nullity. Id., 468. An orderly extension of an existing district to serve a public need is not spot zoning; commission acts in a legislative capacity; board of appeals acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Id., 592. Disregard of zoning regulations re traffic congestion and allowing access to commercial property through residential area constitutes illegal action by board. Id., 597. Notice is adequate if it sufficiently apprises those who may be affected of nature and character of action proposed; exempting shopping centers from certain liquor regulations held reasonable; classification is duty of legislative body. Id., 625. Delay in prosecuting violation by commission not deemed waiver. Id., 682. Purchasers of property have right to expect that classification will not change unless new conditions arise which demand rezoning for public good. 146 C. 170 . Fact that person other than member of commission acted as moderator at public hearing does not of itself invalidate such hearing; upgrading of zone in residential semirural area is type of regulation generally upheld. Id., 531. Commission must state upon its records its reason for changing zoning regulation or boundaries of zoning district and such statement should contain only such reasons as motivated commission as collective body; extension of existing business zone held to constitute spot zoning. 147 Conn. 30 . Stamford charter provides for review of action of zoning board by board of representatives; held that function of latter board is legislative and it may act without notice and hearing; unless charter expressly states otherwise, once zoning commission has adopted zoning regulations, municipality is powerless to amend them. 148 Conn. 33 . When zoning authorities act within their prescribed legislative powers, they have a wide and liberal discretion; if change of zone is in accordance with comprehensive plan and predominating purpose in making change is to benefit community as a whole rather than landowner, this does not constitute spot zoning even though owner may receive an incidental benefit. Id., 68. Denial of petition pending action of planning commission held not to constitute surrender of its functions to planning commission; denial of an application "without prejudice" may permit a renewal of such application without waiting twelve months; possible that denial of an application "without prejudice" may raise a question whether such matter is appealable. Id., 172. Rule that zoning board of appeals cannot reverse an earlier decision unless there are changed conditions does not necessarily apply to zoning commission, which is essentially a legislative body; provision that board shall state upon its records its reasons for making a change is directory only, and failure to comply does not make action of commission void. Id., 299. Test of board's power to change zone is whether change is for benefit of community as a whole rather than for benefit of particular individual or groups of individuals. Id., 492. Commission tabled application for zone change pending receipt of additional information to support such change but later approved application without obtaining such information; held commission was motivated by individual welfare of petitioner and not the common good; in making change in zone, commission must follow mandates of Sec. 8-2 ; an important purpose of zoning is to lessen congestion in streets. Id., 500. Appeals from zoning authorities exist only under statutory authority; Stamford charter provides for review of the action of its zoning board in amending zoning map either by direct appeal to court or by petition to legislative body and then an appeal to court from such body's decision; held that each method is complete in itself and having pursued one, a party is precluded from pursuing the other. Id., 551. Strict compliance with statute is prerequisite to zoning action. 149 C. 76 . Legislative history. Id., 77. Where former statute provided, if adequate protest is filed, no zone change can be made "except by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the zoning commission", held an affirmative two-thirds vote of authorized membership of commission is required. Id., 78. Failure of zoning commission to state on its records any reasons for zone change did not render action void. 149 Conn. 411 . Cited. Id., 680, 682. Not spot zoning if change results in good of community as a whole and falls within requirements of comprehensive plan. 150 C. 646 . Prior to 1963 amendment of Sec. 8-7 , when no reason given for denial of application for special exception, court must search record to discover sufficient reason to support decision; no statutory requirement for giving reason for denial. 151 C. 265. Change of small area from one residential classification to another residential classification does not of itself constitute "spot zoning". Id., 425. Elements constituting "spot zoning" discussed. 152 C. 7 . Cited. Id., 311. Due process requirements not violated because plaintiff did not receive actual notice of zoning ordinance since adoption of ordinance affected every property owner in the town and such a rule would nullify statutory provision for notice by publication. Id., 325. Fact that zoning regulations were designated as "interim" does not make them invalid. 153 Conn. 187 . Cited. Id., 483. Board not required to state a reason for denying a change of zone. Id., 574, 576. Change of zone which is dependent for its proper functioning on action by other agencies and over which zoning commission has no control cannot be sustained unless the necessary action appears to be a probability. 154 C. 202 , 210. Claim public hearing statutory provision violated not considered as not raised or passed on by trial court. Id., 463. Variances should be granted charily; where plaintiff applied for a substantial variance of set back requirements and board denied application upon grounds of public convenience and welfare, appeal denied. Id., 484. Notice and filing of zone changes actually adopted distinct from, independent of and in addition to prehearing notice and filing. 155 C. 1 2, 16. Filing of map prior to hearing not required unless integral part of proposed regulations; statute does not require retention by town clerk of proposed zoning regulations after public hearing on same. Id., 20. Notice stating that among proposed changes in the zoning regulations was repeal of a paragraph specified by section and subsection numbers held sufficient. Id., 511. Cited. 156 C. 103 . Where public notice contained text of proposed zoning amendment, notice was sufficient although adopted amendment differed from proposal so as to affect plaintiffs' interests; fundamental character was not changed. 157 C. 303 . Decision rendered after 60 days is not invalid; language of section is directory only. Id., 520. Power to grant variance must be sparingly exercised and financial hardship alone is not sufficient grounds for granting variance. 158 C. 86 . Cited. 160 C. 295 . Member of zoning commission absent from public hearing may vote on proposed changes if he sufficiently acquaints himself with evidence presented at hearing. 161 Conn. 32 . One publication in two newspapers, proper notice. 163 C. 45 . Cited. 166 Conn. 207 . Where zoning authority has stated reasons for zone change, reviewing court limits determinations to whether assigned grounds are pertinent and reasonably supported by the record. Id., 533, 543. Application of a "floating zone" to land in a town requires an application for change of zone and a public hearing as to the particular property or area. 168 Conn. 20 . The zoning commission acts arbitrarily and violates the statutory uniformity requirement when it attempts to establish a buffer zone between two zones with different classifications in a specific instance but not in other instances. Id., 358. Cited. Id., 512; 170 Conn. 61 ; 173 Conn. 23 ; 176 C. 439 ; 178 Conn. 657 ; 186 Conn. 106 ; 194 Conn. 152 ; 195 C. 276 ; 212 C. 471 ; 213 Conn. 604 ; 218 C. 65 ; 219 C. 139 ; 220 C. 455 ; Id., 556; 221 C. 374 ; 222 C. 380 ; 224 C. 44 ; 232 Conn. 122 ; 235 C. 417 ; Id., 448. Cited. 1 CA 621 ; 2 CA 49 ; Id., 506; 6 CA 686 ; 7 Conn.App. 684 ; 13 CA 448; 17 CA 150 ; Id., 405; 18 CA 85 ; 23 CA 232 ; Id., 256; 25 CA 164 ; 27 CA 443 ; 28 Conn.App. 314 ; 41 CA 89 . When time requirements for notice are computed, the terminal days are excluded; purpose of such notice is to fairly and sufficiently apprise those who may be affected by the proposed action and enable them to prepare intelligently for the hearing; however, when a site plan is separable from its accompanying documents and the special permit application is for a use not permitted as of right, section is not applicable, and where the special permit application must contain a site plan, automatic approval under section may not occur if commission does not meet time limits in Sec. 8-3c . 60 CA 504 . There is a strong presumption of regularity in proceedings of a public body such as a municipal planning and zoning commission; the settled standard of review of questions of fact determined by a zoning authority is that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning authority as long as it reflects an honest judgment reasonably exercised; court's review is based on the record, which includes the knowledge of the board members gained through personal observation of the site or through their personal knowledge of the area involved. 99 Conn.App. 768 . Improper for zoning board not to state upon its record the reasons it granted a variance. 10 CS 340 . Cited. 13 Conn.Supp. 59 . History. Id., 330. Compared with former statute. 15 Conn.Supp. 413 . Protest against change of zone may be filed any time before final definitive action changing zone. 16 CS 42 . In term "at least ten days before the hearing", neither terminal date can be included in the computation of the period. 19 CS 441 . Relationship through marriage of real estate agent assisting in development to zoning official not a disqualifying factor when official's vote was not necessary to decision. Id., 448. Persons who have signed a protest petition may not, in the absence of fraud, withdraw their names after the public hearing has been closed or concluded; history of section reviewed. 20 CS 83 . News stories mentioning a public hearing held not to constitute notice. 21 Conn.Supp. 78 . This section and Secs. 8-8 and 8-9 are not so linked that the date of publication of notice must be considered as the date the decision was rendered. 26 CS 88 . Cited. Id., 169. Where information obtained at an ex parte meeting and public hearing were obviously taken into consideration by commission members at another public hearing some eight months later, procedure was improper since zone change opponents were given no opportunity to ascertain subordinate facts or cross-examine. Id., 500, 501. Where town's zoning regulations make no provision for amendment or repeal, section controls amendments and repeals. 28 Conn.Supp. 278 . Adoption of zoning regulations on Sunday is illegal conduct of secular business. 31 CS 440 . Cited 35 Conn.Supp. 246 ; 36 Conn.Supp. 281 ; 38 CS 492 ; Id., 590; 39 CS 426 ; 41 CS 218 . Subsec. (a): Cited. 211 C. 78 . Strict compliance with section prerequisite to amending town zoning regulations. 222 C. 374 . Trial court improperly concluded that plaintiffs had waived their claim that defendant failed to comply with prescribed notice requirements; requirement of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by any party and can be raised at any stage of proceedings; trial court improperly determined that statutory notice requirements were satisfied through reference to maps on file in tax assessor's office; mere reference to a map on file in offices of a separate agency does not constitute adequate notice of boundaries of property affected by proposed zone change. 277 C. 268 . Publication of additional notices for rescheduled public hearing not required where zoning commission had satisfied notice requirements for the originally scheduled public hearing; although failure to comply with requirement of filing a copy of proposed zoning amendment with town clerk at least 10 days before public hearing is a jurisdictional defect that would render commission's zoning amendment invalid, plaintiff did not sustain its burden of proving that notice requirements were not met. 281 Conn. 66 . Cited. 20 CA 705 , 706; 25 CA 611 , 615; judgment reversed, see 223 C. 171 ; 30 CA 454 . Failure to accurately describe subject property was inadequate notice for public hearing. 50 CA 517 . Trial court's finding that notice requirements were not met was clear error. 54 CA 440 . Notice of proposed zone change was sufficient in that the information provided in the metes and bounds description apprised the public, at a minimum, of the major contours of the project at issue. 146 Conn.App. 406 . Subsec. (d): Cited. 211 Conn. 78 . Appellate Court erred in concluding that planning and zoning commission could retroactively validate an otherwise invalid zone change by fixing a new effective date and publishing notice of its decision prior to that date; commission's failure to comply with publication requirement rendered the zone change void. 260 C. 399 . Cited. 30 Conn.App. 454 . Although compliance with notice requirement is mandatory for zone change to be effective, timing of notice is directory and commission was allowed to fix new effective date and publish required notice. 53 CA 182 . Subsec. (f): Cited. 192 C. 367 ; 225 C. 575 . Although federal regulations allow a local zoning commission to consider compliance with local health regulations in evaluating recreational uses within a hydroelectric power project, federal regulations do not require that licensee obtain local zoning and building permits for development of recreational resources. 285 C. 498 . Cited. 6 CA 284 . Subsec. (g): Cited. 192 C. 353 ; 194 C. 187 ; 211 C. 331 ; 215 C. 527 ; 222 C. 262 ; Id., 269; Id., 607; Id., 911; 223 Conn. 171 ; 224 C. 96 ; Id., 106; Id., 924; 225 C. 432 ; Id., 575; 226 C. 579 ; Id., 684; 227 C. 799 . If site plan and accompanying documents are separable, Subsec. does not apply. 253 C. 183 . Decisions and conditions that underlay commission's approval of a general plan of development that are final and unreviewable during subsequent site plan proceedings are unlawful. 290 C. 300 . Cited. 2 CA 489 ; 3 CA 556 ; 6 Conn.App. 284 ; 15 CA 561 ; 17 CA 405 ; 25 CA 392; judgment reversed, see 222 Conn. 607 ; 29 CA 1 ; Id., 469; 35 CA 317 ; Id., 599. Requirement that zoning commission give wetlands commission report "due consideration" is not a statutory mandate that zoning commission's decision be based on wetlands commission's report. 122 CA 112.
See Sec. 7-159b re preapplication review of use of property.